[Cfp-interest] WG14 meeting notes for Part 1 review

[Rajan Bhakta]

Sorry for the delay. I intended to pretty these up but have not had the 
time yet.
Here are the raw notes:


n1676: (Floating point TS Part 1) 

  2013/04/23, 11:00 am, Jim Thomas presenting 
 
  ISO/IEC TS 18661 
 
  Looking at comments in n1702 for n1676 
 
  Jim: One comment from Joseph, one from Willem, the remainder from the 
subgroup participants 
 
  John: The next step is to get the document ready for its first ballot 
step: The PDTS ballot. Two more chances to look at this document after 
this meeting if it gets pushed out as a PDTS this meeting, which is the 
goal. Each part should follow the next part by a year. This will allow the 
subgroup to focus on part 2. 
 
  Jim: All these comments were looked at the April teleconference, the 
recommendations in the last column. I will look at the non-editorial 
comments. 
 
  John: Editorial issues are for the project editor. If someone wants to 
discuss that they can bring it up, but otherwise we can skip them. 

  Jim: Comment #1: Comment 10 and 15 also refer to the wide character 
functions. We will add them and atof as referred to in this comment. 
    Comment #2: Editorial, but has general issues: Suggested changes vs 
changes. We will make the change. The "suggested changes" text was taken 
from another TS. 
    Barry: They are suggested since they are non-normative. 
    Willem: The changes make this normative. 
    Blaine: When you adopt the TS, these changes become normative. 
    Jim: The changes are in normative parts of the standard. 
    Clark: This isn't a proposal to change the standard. These are changes 
relative to C11. Perhaps say "changes relative to C11". 
    Jim: There is a global statement that says this is relative to C11. 
 
  Jim: Comment #19: We made llogb analogous to logb. 
 
  Jim: Comment #24: To keep consistency we want to change floating type to 
real floating. 
 
  Benito: Next step is to ask Jim to prepare a paper with all these 
changes. 
  Fred: The monthly teleconference will review this. 
  Benito: I want WG14 to review this. If you are not a part of the 
teleconferences, you may be left behind so you should contact Jim to be a 
part of it. A small editorial committee that makes sure only the changes 
in n1702 are made to the document should be made now. After that, the new 
document can go for PDTR. 
  Jim: The n1676 document is different from the NWI proposal, but the 
comments are for n1676. 
 
  Editorial committee: Fred, David, Benito 
 
  Jim: A document should be ready in a week. 
 
  Benito: We'll have a teleconference if there are comments on the applied 
changes. Otherwise we'll move forward. Jim gives the document to John with 
change bars, John gives it to the review committee for whatever time frame 
we decide. Jim then makes a document without change bars which John then 
sends it to SC22 for a 90 day ballot. We'll have the results for the 
October meeting. 
  Benito: Will give some ISO formatting changes to Jim as well in a day or 
so to make it in for the review. 
 
n1690: (Floating point TS Part 2) 
  Jim: This is an update to the draft presented in a previous meeting. The 
goal is to have this ready by sometime in August to be in the place Part 1 
is now. The change bars are relative to the last WG14 mailing. I will go 
over the significant changes. 
 
  Jim: Page 1 (Scope): Lists all the aspects the Decimal TR didn't cover. 
    Some discussion on why we didn't require Part 1, but given it was 
committee direction, it was OK. 
  Jim: Page 2: Allows free standing implementations. 
    Some discussion on if anyone has done this, but given it was committee 
direction, it was OK. 
  Jim: Page 6: Table of the preferred quantum exponents. 
  Jim: Page 8: Refers the binding table in part 1 to give the binding to 
decimal types as well. 
    Willem: Annex F is binary. Should decimal not be a separate annex? 
    Jim: This would lead to duplicating a large amount of Annex F. 
    Willem: Changes for both part 1 and part 2 would make Annex F 
unreadable. 
    Jim: This is true for the standard itself due to the generic floating 
points and decimal. 
    Willem: The reader may want these two annexes separate. It would help 
to see how this looks like. i.e. One for Binary (IEEE binary float) and 
one for Decimal (IEEE DFP). 
    Jim: The problem will be worse with Part 3 since it can affect both 1 
and/or 2. 
    Clive: Is the objective that Part 1 replaces Annex F? 
    Jim: Part 1 makes changes to Annex F. 
    Willem: Is the intention that these parts will become part of the 
standard or if they stay a TS permanently. 
    Jim*: Let me look at this and bring it back for Part 3 since the issue 
applies there as well. 
  Jim: Page 10: Clarity 
  Jim: Page 13: Preserving quantum exponent guidance for the compiler 
  Jim: Page 16: Name changes of the types to match IEEE 
  Jim: Page 17: Changed the names of the macros to be consistent with Part 
3 
  Jim: Page 25-26: Same as above (pg 17) 
  Jim: Page 34: Defines the tgmath changes 
 
  Note: The comments make the spacing of the paper look different. Not 
really that way in the real document. 
  Fred: Page 1 is listed as Roman numeral format. 

Regards,

Rajan Bhakta
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect
ISO C Standards Representative for Canada
C Compiler Development
Contact: rbhakta at ca.ibm.com, Rajan Bhakta/Toronto/IBM
Telephone: (905) 413-3995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20130506/2a2bf2ec/attachment.html