[Cfp-interest] WG14 IEEE 754-C binding meeting minutes 2014/02/13
Rajan Bhakta
rbhakta at us.ibm.com
Thu Feb 13 10:49:18 PST 2014
2014/02/13, 12:00 EST:
Attendees: Jim, Mike, Rajan, Ian
New agenda items:
None.
Old action items:
Jim: Look into using the Wiki as a backup for the documents in Word
format. - Most current version has been put up with PDF as well. Keep this
item open. - Continuing to be done
Jim: Part 4: Look for opportunities for shortening function lists by
removing suffixes. - Not done - Close item since there does not seem to be
a good way.
Jim: Part 3: Bring up the clause letter numbering issue at the WG14
meeting and get direction on where to put it (since the C Standard editor
is normally there). - Done
Jim: Part 3: Page viii: Reword to make the double format types
clearer. (Joseph's 2014/01/06 email) - Done
Jim: Part 3: Fix the typo's listed by Joseph. (Joseph's 2014/01/06
email) - Done
Jim: Part 3: Page 3: Add in the macro as suggested. (Joseph's
2014/01/06 email) - Done
All: Part 3: Page 9: Look at this and decide what we should do for
decimal floating types. (Joseph's 2014/01/06 email) - Done
All: Part 3: Page 11: Look at this and decide what we should do for
the _FloatN* types and how to make it clearer what we want. (Joseph's
2014/01/06 email) - Done
Jim: Part 3: Page 32: Item 2: Mark this as an open issue. (Joseph's
2014/01/06 email) - Not done
Jim: Part 3: Page 32: Item 3: Check and add if needed. (Joseph's
2014/01/06 email) - Done
Jim: Part 3: Page 34-36: Check and add if needed. (Joseph's 2014/01/06
email) - Done
Jim: Part 4: Create a spreadsheet of log and exp functions and list
the alternatives to see which conventions are being broken. - Done
All: Part 4: Group to review the spreadsheet above and choose the best
(least worse) naming scheme. - Done
Jim: Part 4: Attempt to make the changes as described in the "General
comment" part of the email. (Joseph's 2014/01/07 email) - Done
Jim: Part 4: Fix the typo's listed by Joseph. (Joseph's 2014/01/07
email) - Done
Jim: Part 4: Page 3: Item 2: Look into how to address this. (Joseph's
2014/01/07 email) - Done
Jim: Part 4: Page 14: Add in a footnote to the end of the description
saying "cr" stands for correctly rounded. (Joseph's 2014/01/07 email) -
Done
Jim: Part 4: Page 16: Item 2: Look into rewording (ex. remove NaN
specifications) to make this clearer. (Joseph's 2014/01/07 email) - Done
Next Meeting:
March 18th, 2014, 12:00 EST, 9:00 PDT
Same teleconference number.
New action items:
Jim: Backup the documents in Word format. - Most current version has
been put up. Keep this item open.
Current files: http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp1.docx
Current files: http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp2.docx
Current files: http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3.docx
Current files: http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp4.docx
Note: Should also keep versions that are equivalent to PDF's.
Jim: Part 3: Add explanation of type classification somewhere in the
TS or changes to the standard document.
Jim: Page 22: See about breaking the paragraph up to make it clearer
(maybe bullets).
Jim: Page 44: Remove dN and dNx since there are no complex decimal
types.
Jim: Page 6: Talk to Fred to see if he is OK with the errors.
Jim: Page 15: Move the cr prefix new text to a footnote.
Jim: Page 23: Typos (changes 2 and 3): scaled_prod -> scaled_prodsum,
scaled_prod -> scaled_proddiff
Rajan: Ask WG14 why pole errors are specified the way they are in the
C meeting.
Discussion:
Part 1: Out for ISO DTS ballot. Ballot ends March 5th, 2014.
No comments so far.
Part 2: Out for first ISO ballot (PDTS). Ballot ends March 10th, 2014.
No comments so far.
Part 3: (http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/n1789.pdf)
Page 19-20:
Mike: It would be nice to have a single page lookup for the terms
like decimal types and binary types.
Jim: The C standard has a section on terms. We can add them there
(Section 3).
Rajan: Maybe put them in the TS terms (Section 4 new subsection
for new terms) since the standard doesn't have things like integer types
definitions in section 3.
Mike: Just a list of terms and where they are defined would be
good.
*ToDo: Jim: Part 3: Add explanation of type classification
somewhere in the TS or changes to the standard document.
Mike: Probably too late for Part 1 and 2, but it is reasonable to
put them in this part since this is where we introduce most of them.
Jim: Talking about part 3, it has been useful to show the type
tree. This could be added to the TS.
Subsequent changes: (
http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3-20140207.pdf)
*ToDo: Jim: Page 22: See about breaking the paragraph up to make
it clearer (maybe bullets).
*ToDo: Jim: Page 44: Remove dN and dNx since there are no complex
decimal types.
Agreed to send to the mailing after the fixes listed above in
ToDo's.
Agreed to propose moving this to WG14 review and then PDTS ballot.
Part 4: (http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/n1790.pdf)
Page 3: We added logp1.
*ToDo: Jim: Page 6: Talk to Fred to see if he is OK with the errors.
*ToDo: Jim: Page 15: Move the cr prefix new text to a footnote.
Page 16: David and Marius would be good to go over this.
*ToDo: Jim: Page 16: Talk to David, Marius, and Fred to see if they
can carefully review the special cases on the functions.
Page 17: Could go either way, but in practice likely not going to
make a difference. Note that the compoundn NaN case would quietly return a
NaN which is different from IEEE.
*ToDo: Jim: Page 23: Typos (changes 2 and 3): scaled_prod ->
scaled_prodsum, scaled_prod -> scaled_proddiff
Subsequent changes: (
http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp4-20140207.pdf)
Page 3: The WANT macros for DFP require the DFP WANT macro for
32/64/128 and TYPES WANT macro for the extended types. This is awkward.
Page 9: Why did C11 say "may occur" for pole errors? If there is a
good reason, we should do the same, if not, should we try to fix this?
The description in 7.12.1p3 says log(0.0) is a pole error, but
in the definition of the log function does not say a pole error must
occur, only may occur.
Rajan: We should keep the C11 style since may is weaker than
must and it won't break anyone.
*ToDo: Rajan: Ask WG14 why pole errors are specified the
way they are in the C meeting.
For the draft, we will follow the C11 style.
Page 15: There was a suggestion to add in more functions. This
list was basically what was in 754 (except three of the pi functions). Ex.
Add in erf.
Don't want scope creep so we will keep the existing list and not
add new ones.
Related: Add in correctly rounded reduction functions.
David gave papers which showed reproducibility but not
necessarily correctly rounded.
Same argument about scope creep.
Agreed to send to the mailing after the fixes listed above in
ToDo's.
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/20140213/2e1aed9d/attachment.html
More information about the Cfp-interest
mailing list