[Cfp-interest 1442] Re: WG14 IEEE 754-C binding meeting minutes 2019/11/20

Rajan Bhakta rbhakta at us.ibm.com
Thu Nov 21 10:20:46 PST 2019


For my AI:

Fixes to the source:
char[n] s; -> char s[n];

That results in the following:
  // convert d to single-byte character string s
  char s[n];
  int nc = strfromd(s, n, "%g", d);
  // convert s (regarded as a multi-byte character string) to wide string 
ws
  (void)mbstowcs(ws, s, n);

This compiles and runs fine on my z/OS and AIX systems using basic english 
character encodings (ASCII and EBCDIC-1047).

Regards,

Rajan Bhakta
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect
ISO C Standards Representative for Canada, PL22.11 Chair (USA)
C Compiler Development
Contact: rbhakta at us.ibm.com, Rajan Bhakta/Houston/IBM



From:   Jim Thomas <jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net>
To:     CFP <cfp-interest at ucbtest.org>
Date:   11/20/2019 06:04 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [Cfp-interest 1441] WG14 IEEE 754-C binding 
meeting minutes 2019/11/20
Sent by:        cfp-interest-bounces at oakapple.net



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

  New agenda items:
    Jens email (SC22WG14.17316) WG14 gorvernance 

  Carry over action items:
    CFP: Put the tgmath redefinition as a proposal to the standard once we 
have a base document with TS Part 3 in it. Carry over again.
       
  Last meeting action items:
    CFP: Follow up on CFP1419 via email. DONE
    Jim: Create a WG14 paper for the next Spring 2020 WG14 meeting along 
the lines of CFP1411. DONE

  New action items:
    Fred: Update erange proposal based on CFP 1437 and CFP teleconference 
discussion.
    Jim: Submit 
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_NaN_and_infinity_macros_-_20191108.pdf 
to WG14.
    Rajan: Compile example code in 
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_why_no_wide_string_strfrom_functions_v2.pdf
.
    Jim: Choose how to attach footnote in 
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_why_no_wide_string_strfrom_functions_v2.pdf
; mention the other approach  in the problem description.
    JIm: Draft a paper proposing changing the “cr” prefix for correctly 
rounded functions to “cr_”. Include with other suggested changes in 
response to Jens’s naming paper.
    David H: Draft words to recommend honoring properties of math 
functions that would follow automatically from correct rounding.
    Jim: Find a place for words about math function properties. Coordinate 
with David H (previous AI).
    Jim: Draft a proposal to change the return words for powr and add the 
footnote (presented in the meeting) to justify powr.
    
  Next Meeting(s):
    Thursday, January 9th, 2020, 11:00 EST, 8:00 PST, 4PM UTC
    Same teleconference number.
    Please notify the group if this time slot does not work.

  Discussion:
    754 revision:
      This is the final resting place for the public records of 754-2019 
development, 
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/msc/ANSI_IEEE-Std-754-2019
in the IEEE SA MSC page.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/msc/index.html

    C++ Liaison:
      Nothing.

    Jens’s email (SC22WG14.17316) WG14 governance
      Discussed content and relevance to CFP.
      Concerns about transition to new editor and work in progress.

    WG14 meeting in Ithaca
      See CFP 1432 - Rajan’s report on CFP related issues
      Excerpts …
Here is a summary of the results for what was discussed for floating point 
papers yesterday. Note that we have one action item (reword N2400), and 
also the proposal for Part 5 a and b went a lot better than last time and 
we got on the verge of approval (but not quite).
      N2384 Thomas, C2X proposal - F.8 update
        Goes into C2X.
      N2400 Thomas, C2X proposal - why no wide string strfrom functions
        CFP to send this text to the editor as a footnote and a recipe 
(steps to get wide string version of strfrom code example) form.
      N2406 Tydeman, SNAN: initialization and unary +
        Goes into C2X.
      N2407 Thomas, Proposal for C2X - TS 18661-5abc supplementary 
attributes
        Straw poll: Does the committee want TS 18661-5a to be brought into 
C2X?
          Result: 5/3/5. Not quite approval.
        Straw poll: Does the committee want TS 18661-5b to be brought into 
C2X?
          Result: 4/3/6. Not approved. 
      N2416 Thomas, Proposal for C2X - floating-point negation and 
conversion
        Goes into C2X.
      N2424 Thomas, Proposal for C2X proposal – Why logp1?
        Goes into C2X. 
      The naming proposal did not pass and there were no action items for 
CFP from it. WG14 didn’t get into the cr prefix or NaN and infinity macro 
names.
      N2409 (reserved names) is something we should track for changes 
affecting CFP.
      There was no resolution about intmax_t. 
 
    C2X integration (
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2433.pdf):
      Draft includes TS 1, 2, and 4a
      TS 5abc inclusion into C2X nearly passed. Might should be 
resubmitted later.
      Part 3 integration status in question, given Jen’s email.
      Too early to update parts not integrated into C2X. Need ISO approval 
to republish TS.
     
  Action item details:
    CFP: Follow up on CFP1419 via email.
      See CFP 1437.
      Talked through changes proposed in 1437. 
      Agreed to be consistent on saying “magnitude of”, even if redundant 
as in “magnitude of positive finite x is too large. 
      Agreed to split non-symmetric cases to state positive and negative 
cases separately, as in 1437, e.g., in exp and expm1. 
      Agreed to “A range error occurs for some finite x, depending on p” 
for ldexp, and similar words for scalbn and scalbln and elsewhere where 
characterization of range errors is complicated. 
      Agreed to “A range error occurs for some finite arguments” for fdim. 

      Agree to avoid “may occur” in general.
      *AI*: Fred: Update erange proposal based on CFP 1437 and CFP 
teleconference discussion.

    Jim: Create a WG14 paper for the next Spring 2020 WG14 meeting along 
the lines of CFP1411.
      
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_NaN_and_infinity_macros_-_20191108.pdf
      Reviewed.
      Ok to submit to WG14? Yes.
      *AI*: jJim submit to WG14.

    From WG14:
    N2400 Thomas, C2X proposal - why no wide string strfrom functions
        CFP to send this text to the editor as a footnote and a recipe 
(steps to get wide string version of strfrom code example) form. 
      See CFP 1436.
      
http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_why_no_wide_string_strfrom_functions_v2.pdf
      *AI*: Rajan: compile code in example.
      *AI*: Jim: Choose how to attach footnote and mention the other 
approach in the problem description.

  Other issues:
    N2426 -- naming issues
      Shall we propose changing to cr_? Agreed.
      Rajan: Include with other changes in response to naming paper.
      AI: Jim draft a proposal and include other suggested changes in 
response to naming paper.

    Specifying more special cases for math functions, e.g., periodicity 
for half-revolution trig functions. Perhaps as recommended practice.
      Are we going to propose adding anything?
      Jim: Could there be a note or recommended practice for 
implementations to honor function properties that would hold if the 
function were correctly rounded, e.g., monotonicity, periodicity, exact 
cases, ertc.
      *AI*: David H: Draft words to recommend honoring properties of math 
functions that would follow automatically with correct rounding.
      *AI*: Jim: Find a place for words about math function properties. 
Coordinate with David H.

    powr
      Currently says “The powr functions compute x raised to the power y 
as e ^ (y log x). …” and “The powr functions return x^y.” 
      Would it be better to say “The powr functions return e ^ (y log 
x).”? Agreed yes.
      Jens suggested a note about pow vs powr. 
      Jim: How about a footnote attached to the first sentence in the 
Description where the footnote is:
      (*) Restricting the domain to that of the formula e ^ (y * log(x)) 
is intended to better meet expectations for a continuous power function 
and to allow more efficient implementation by avoiding some case analysis.
      *AI*: Jim: draft a proposal to change the return words and add a 
footnote.

     Attributes - recent WG14 email thread
      Does this pertain to CFP?
      Jim: A vehicle for CFP pragma functionality?
      Rajan: current ideas are for attributes that don’t apply to blocks, 
so no.
 
    Followup on what does “normalized” mean in C? See CFP 1399
      Defer.

- Jim Thomas

  _______________________________________________
Cfp-interest mailing list
Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.oakapple.net_mailman_listinfo_cfp-2Dinterest&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=MPb4GyWs7nd-w3OlFPs29W1dB3gHMdsdghhjcQMf428&m=7eEDlJSCcX20b3UKkC-m-fpia89YdH7NkNHcIiqrkHk&s=hiLrzWPlq9A7R2ebjc-5P4ASswP6d0pAN_tj9idI_80&e= 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20191121/ddd7fdf3/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Cfp-interest mailing list