[Cfp-interest 1279] WG14 IEEE 754-C binding meeting minutes 2019/03/18

Mon Mar 18 09:37:34 PDT 2019

2019/01/24: 10:00 CST:
  Attendees: Rajan, Jim, David H., Ian

  New agenda items:
    None.

  Carry over action items:
    Ian: See if there is an incompatibility between C and C++ for 
constants being evaluated to a wider format (Ex. FLT_EVAL_METHOD affects 
constants in C++, and wider return values) - Keep open.
      Seems to be incompatible in the older C++ standard. Ex. C++ did not 
allow evaluation in a greater precision than the type.
      2019/03/18: Libraries no longer have the standards due to cost. The 
books on C++ didn't mention this either.
      Working copies are in the Github repository linked to at 
https://isocpp.org/std/the-standard
    Jim: Update the binding table in parts 1 and 2 to handle the new 
IEEE-754:2018 functions when published. - Close (added to a list later 
on).
    All: totalorder* differ for NaN payloads: Note that we don’t have 
approval to move up to 754 201x yet. - Close since the TS is integrated 
into C2X and once the reference to the IEEE standard gets updated this is 
a non-issue.
    All: Review the rationale for part 5 a, b, c proposal. - Carry over.
    Rajan: Say to WG14 that CFP supports removing the WANT macros and 
leaving the rest as is due to Fred's reasoning. - Carry over
 
  Last meeting action items:
    Jim: Put a list of new items that need to be done like the binding 
table and the totalorder* carry over action items as well as adding in the 
min/max and augmented arithmetic to a new part 4 revision. - Done.
    Jim: Look at the part 3 X.2.6 change where the removal of the float 
_Imaginary, etc. part of the list may imply those are not valid types 
anymore. - Done.
    Jim: Get a document number to submit the Part 3 as an Annex proposal 
to WG14 for the mailing. - Done.
    Jim: Correct typo in page 1 of the proposal for part 4a ("As shown in 
the table below, C already supports 22 *of* the 39...") - Done.
    David H: Take a closer look at the new proposal for part 4a (
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_TS_18661-4a-2-20190213.pdf
) to ensure it is good for submission via the reflector so it can be 
submitted by Jim to WG14. - Done.
    All: Review 
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdf 
within a week. If no changes, Jim will get a document number and send this 
into WG14. - Done.
    Jim: Look to see if there is a place to put a note to address the 
alternate exception handling in annex F to clarify how C specifies using 
default exception handling only. - Done.
    Jim: Get a document number to submit the Part 2 (
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp2x-C2X-20190215.pdf) to WG14 for 
the mailing. - Done.
    Fred: Create papers for the SNAN initialization and unary + operation 
as CFP papers (CFP 1249, 1253, 1247, 1250) for future submission to WG14. 
- Carry over.
    All: Consider why we didn't have wide string from functions and if we 
should do them. - Done.
 
  New action items:
    Jim/Rajan: Create a slide deck to show the changes made to make Part 3 
into an Annex as WG14 requested.
    Jim: Make CFP 1277 into a C2X proposal.
    Jim: Propose a footnote to describe why there are no wide string 
strfrom functions (compose strfrom with wide string conversion functions 
is sufficient) 

  Next Meeting(s):
    Tuesday, April 23rd, 2019, 11:00 EST, 8:00 PST, 4PM UTC
    Same teleconference number.

  Discussion:
    754 revision:
      Handled all the open issues for recirculation. Preparing that draft 
which should occur after March 22nd (for 10 days).
      As mentioned before, can only add new comments on new text, not old 
text.
      Uncertainty factor: IEEE boilerplate is full of bugs.
 
    C++ Liaison:
      None.

    WG14 meeting (April 29th-May 3rd) pre-meeting mailing deadline: March 
18th, 2019.
      Meeting information: 
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2318.htm, Venue 
information N2308 (linked to in the agenda).

      CFP agenda items P1 integration P2 integration
        P3 as annex – N2342
        P4a proposal - N2355
        Update for C2X payload functions – N2356
        P4 CR for rootn case differs from IEEE 754 – N2309
 
      Unclosed CR/DRs
        P3 DR 13 - Type-generic macros for functions that round result to 
narrower type 
        P1 DR 16r - tgmath cbrt macro
        P1 DR 20 - P1 CR for obsolescing DECIMAL_DIG
        P1 DR 21 - printf of one-digit character string
        P3 DR 22 - P3 CR for obsolescing DECIMAL_DIG
        P2 CR 23 - llquantexp invalid case
        P1 CR 24 - remainder NaN case
        P1 CR 25 – totalorder parameters
        DR 500 - Ambiguous specification for FLT_EVAL_METHOD – marked as 
C2x
        DR 501 - Can DECIMAL_DIG be larger than necessary?

    C2X integration:
      Part 1:
        Integrated into a working C2X draft. Posted on the wiki. See WG14 
message 16214.

      Part 2:
        A draft is posted on the wiki for review.

      Part 3:
        A draft as an annex is ready for review today.

      Part 4ab:
        4a has an updated proposal.
        For 4b, we should leave as a TS and add in the augmented 
arithmetic.

      Part 5abcd:
        Leave to after the Spring 2019 WG14 meeting.
        Jim: (a) is related to evaluation methods.
          Ian: Similar to my action item.
        Jim: I think they are worth making another pitch on these.
        Looking to rework the proposals.

  Action item details:
    Jim: Put a list of new items that need to be done like the binding 
table and the totalorder* carry over action items as well as adding in the 
min/max and augmented arithmetic to a new part 4 revision. 
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/For_IEEE_754-2019-20190305.pdf
      Jim: min/max: Since parts 1 and 2 will soon be in C2X, the separate 
proposals (requested by WG14) here may need to be combined again.
 
    Jim: Look at the part 3 X.2.6 change where the removal of the float 
_Imaginary, etc. part of the list may imply those are not valid types 
anymore. See CFP 1268

    Jim: Get a document number to submit the Part 3 as an Annex proposal 
to WG14 for the mailing. http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2342.pdf
      *AI*: Jim/Rajan: Create a slide deck to show the changes made to 
make Part 3 into an Annex as WG14 requested.

    Jim: Correct typo in page 1 of the proposal for part 4a ("As shown in 
the table below, C already supports 22 *of* the 39...")
      N2355.

    David H: Take a closer look at the new proposal for part 4a (
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_TS_18661-4a-2-20190213.pdf
) to ensure it is good for submission via the reflector so it can be 
submitted by Jim to WG14.
      See David H’s CFP 1272. 
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2355.pdf

    All: Review 
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdfwithin 
a week. If no changes, Jim will get a document number and send this into 
WG14. http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2356.pdf

    Jim: Look to see if there is a place to put a note to address the 
alternate exception handling in annex F to clarify how C specifies using 
default exception handling only.
      See CFP 1270, 1277.
      directed rounding -> rounding direction
      *AI*: Jim: Make CFP 1277 into a C2X proposal.
 
    Jim: Get a document number to submit the Part 2 (
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp2x- C2X-20190215.pdf) to WG14 for 
the mailing. http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2341.pdf

    Fred: Create papers for the SNAN initialization and unary + operation 
as CFP papers (CFP 1249, 1253, 1247, 1250) for future submission to WG14.
      Leave for next meeting.

    Rajan: Say to WG14 that CFP supports removing the WANT macros and 
leaving the rest as is due to Fred's reasoning. Note: Also mention CFP's 
appreciation to Jens for the integration editing (done really well).
      See Rajan, Fred, and Jim’s email CFP 1242, 1243, 1244, 1261.
      See WG14 email 15982 – 15983, 15985.

    All: Review the rationale for part 5 a, b, c proposal.
      Leave for next meeting.

    All: Consider why we didn't have wide string from functions and if we 
should do them.
      Sufficient to do strfrom, convert to wide string.
      *AI*: Jim: Propose a footnote to describe why there are no wide 
string strfrom functions (compose strfrom with wide string conversion 
functions is sufficient)

    Other issues
      Fred’s WG 14 papers
      See Fred’s email CFP 1246.
        Decide on our (CFP) position next meeting and Rajan to present our 
view.
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20190318/cbb0819c/attachment-0001.html