[Cfp-interest] WG14 IEEE 754-C binding meeting minutes 2016/09/27

[Rajan Bhakta]

  Attendees: Rajan, Jim, Fred, Ian, Mike, Marius, David H.

  New agenda items:
    None.

  Last meeting action items:
    Jim: Check one of the files from the EDG backup for testing the off 
site backup. - Not done.
    Jim: Update the proposal for Part 2 to make it more similar to Part 
1's proposal. - Done.
    Jim: For all proposals: Change to "This proposal incorporates" as the 
starting. - Done.
    Rajan: Proposal 1: Update the spreadsheet of part 1 features based on 
Marius' note and send it out to the group for final review. - Done.
    Rajan: Proposal 1: Change the prior art text that has "ex." to 
"Example:" since Ex. could mean excluding. - Done.
    Rajan: Proposal 2: Add in prior art based off the spreadsheet of 
features. - Done.
    Jim: Proposal 4b: Mention underflow as well (alongside the existing 
overflow). - Done.
    Jim: Proposal 5a: Look at leaving out the types in the second 
paragraph. - Done.
    Jim: Proposal 5d: Title: alternate expression handling -> alternate 
exception handling - Done.
    Jim: Proposal 5d: Say "portable handling of exceptional cases". - 
Done.
    Jim: Proposal 5d: Simplify the abstract by removing the detail after 
"Some actions control". - Done.
    Jim: Proposal 5d: Say "The pragma allows the program to deal with 
exceptional cases without having to consider implementation details." - 
Done.
    Jim: DDR7: Integrate the changes proposed for the usual arithmetic 
conversions into a combined document to make it easier to read/understand. 
- Done.
    Jim: DDR?: Create a new DDR for the typo that Joseph just raised in 
reflector message 14358. - Done. DR#8.
    Jim: Consult with Mike to discuss the preferred quantum exponent for 
hypot (in the TS), rsqrt, pow* (in the TS), etc. - Done.

  New action items:
    General: Need to look through our docs to see what is in C but not in 
IEEE 754.
    All: Look through WG14 proposals and let Rajan and Jim know if there 
is anything that we need to bring up.
    Jim: DDR9: Update type style.
    Jim: DDR9: Update examples as per Fred's note.

  Next Meeting:
    October 25th, 2016, 12:00 EDT, 9:00 PST
    Same teleconference number.

    Next WG14 meeting (Pittsburgh, 2016/10/17) had a September 19th 
mailing deadline.

  Discussion:
    IEEE 754 revision:
      Converging.
      Some drafting for comparisons left.
      augmentedSum, augmentedProduct names.
      Incorporated suggestions for preferred quantum exponents for 
transcendentals.
        Note that we had decided to do the same if 754 did it (as a DR to 
Part 4). Can wait until settled in 754.
        Fred: Rules do not allow adding new features through DR's.
          We can talk to David Keaton on how to do this after.

    C++ liaison:
      No updates.

    twoSum, twoProduct (now augmentedSum, augmentedProduct) for TS 18661 
update:
      The C committee responded to the C interface that we should return a 
struct with two members.
      Wait to add until settled as discussed above.
      Jim: acospi/asinpi missing, agreed that they are missing, but 
declined to add them.
        All those functions are optional.
        Should 754 add them?
        David H: I would support adding them. Obvious oversight. Will add 
it to the IEEE 754 agenda.
          We already have it in our TS.
        Ian: Are there other functions that should be added? Example: Is 
there an atanpi function?
      Jim: tanpi is not there since there are issues (sign of inf depends 
on direction of approach).
      Mike: Anything else in C that is not in 754?
        *General: Need to look through our docs to see what is in C but 
not in IEEE 754.

    What should be proposed for the C standard:
      Rajan will present the proposals.
      N2078, N2079 are the WG docs.
      *All: Look through WG14 proposals and let Rajan and Jim know if 
there is anything that we need to bring up.

    DRs review (http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DRs2-20160910.pdf):
      DDR8: Typo that amounts to an interface change hence not editorial.

      DDR9: Fred's comment regarding italics will need to be made.
        Jim: The type style is not consistent throughout the document in 
general. Planning on doing it like the TS.
        Fred: Example needs to be updated and that needs to be added in to 
this DDR.
        Jim: The TR says there is a rounding on the type, and that is what 
the TS is based on.
          This means that existing implementations would be incorrect.

    Other:
      None.

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/20160927/c2a93985/attachment.html