[Cfp-interest] WG14 IEEE 754-C binding meeting minutes 2013/08/08

[Rajan Bhakta]

2013/08/08:
  Attendees: Jim, Mike, David, Ian, Rajan, Marius (10:00 PDT)

  Old action items:
    Jim to send email about WANT macros - Done
    All to review July 10th email (5.2.4.2.2 reorg) - Done

  Next meeting:
    September 10th, 2013, 12:00 EST, 9:00 PDT
    Same teleconference number

  New action items:
    Jim: Changes to make to part 2:
      Page 1: does not cover -> neither
      Page 3: Remove lists unless there is an actual change in the
identifiers
      Page 8: Look at the phrase "they have the" to see if other places may
have the existing wording
 			Page 19: Line 4: Font on stdio.h is wrong
    Jim: Changes to make to all parts: Want macro name:
__STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_{BFP, DFP, TYPES, FUNCS, ...}__

  Current status:
    Ballot on part one ends on August 16th and this is the first time we
get to look at comments
    Jim will be on vacation from the 16th to the 29th
    WG14 mailing deadline is September 2nd, but John will allow posting
docs until September 16th to still discuss it in the meeting
      WG14 meeting: September 30th to October 3rd
    Jim can work on speculative draft based on comments discussing over
email before the September meeting
    Jim will get the part 2 draft ready for the WG14 posting

  Part 2 discussion:
    *Page 1: does not cover -> neither
    Page 3: Grouping the changes here is a lot of information at the start,
but it seems to be easier for implementers and for maintenance.
      *The lists are only present for review purposes, but will be removed
for the actual change
    We can have a list of identifiers introduced per want macro.
    Page 8:
      Mike: Rather than "they have the" -> "they correspond to the"
       *Jim: Other places may have the existing wording. I will check.
        Correspond seems too weak.
    Page 11:
      Should we make a corresponding change to the standard floating types
even though the clarification has nothing to do with the new floating point
standard update.
      Rajan: Better to try and pass part 1 and part 2 and handle it as a DR
      Mike: We could also handle this as part of the comments for part 1
      Jim: We can provide editorial suggestions based on the ballot even if
there were no comments on this part

      Do we want to add in the other -ve value text to allow implementation
defined behavior?
        We can come back to this in Part 3 if needed.

    *Page 19: Line 4: Font on stdio.h is wrong

    Page 21:
      This is different from other standard pragmas in that some
implementations do macro expansion in pragmas and others don't. Since the
values are std defined pragmas this may have implications we have not
considered.

    Want macro name:
      Keep functional part for code readability
      Drop EXT#, LIB since they add no value
      Keep IEC, 60559 to identify it
      *Name: __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_{BFP, DFP, TYPES, FUNCS, ...}__

Regards,

Rajan Bhakta
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect
ISO C Standards Representative for Canada
C Compiler Development
Contact: rbhakta at us.ibm.com, Rajan Bhakta/Houston/IBM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20130808/73910a65/attachment.html