I now see that manually-vectorizing ranges::minmax in #4384 was not necessarily a good idea.
Original implementation was implemented in terms of minmax_element and was not vectorized.
But if it was implemented directly, it would have been vectorized.
Consider the following:

unsigned int* max_element(unsigned int*b, unsigned int* e){
    unsigned int m = *b;
    unsigned int* r = b;
    for (++b; b != e; ++b){
        if (m < *b) {
            m = *b;
            r = b;
        }
    }
    return b;
}

unsigned int max1(unsigned int*b, unsigned int* e){
    return *max_element(b, e);
}

unsigned int max2(unsigned int *b, unsigned int* e){
    unsigned int m = *b;
    for (++b; b != e; ++b){
        if (m < *b) {
            m = *b;
        }
    }
    return m;
}

max1 is not vectorized, but max2 is. see https://godbolt.org/z/fG6Yzfz4v

So we could just reimplement ranges::max_element in headers and enjoy vectorization with more context.

Question how should we proceed:

• Keep manual vectorization forever
• Drop it in vNext
• Drop it any time