[Cfp-interest 2147] Re: scheduling message

[Jim Thomas]

It looks like the best time for the meeting, for attendance from WG21 and CFP, will be Wednesday, October 6, at 8 AM PDT / 11 AM EDT  / 3 PM UTC.

- Jim Thomas

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 2:01 PM, Jim Thomas <jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Please also let me know if you could attend on Tuesday, October 5, same time.
> 
> - Jim Thomas
> 
>> On Sep 20, 2021, at 5:45 PM, Jim Thomas <jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net <mailto:jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> The C/C++ liaison group has been discussing at some length possible conflicts (see below) with the WG21 proposal for extension floating-point types and the new C23 annex for TS-3.  Aaron Ballman, as SC22 chair, suggested a joint 1-hour meeting with CFP and interested WG21 members as a forum to deal with the concerns. After email discussion, Aaron, Rajan, and I decided to propose Wednesday, October 6, at 8 AM PDT / 11 AM EDT  / 3 PM UTC. Would you be able to attend a zoom meeting at that time? Please respond if possible by end of Tuesday, September 21.
>> 
>> - Jim Thomas
>> 
>> Aaron wrote:
>> 
>>> Here's the summary of topics I've pulled together from the various
>>> reflector discussions:
>>> 
>>> * Currently, the new types are exclusively available in the
>>> _Reserved_name spelling (like "_Bool" was in C99), there is no set of
>>> "pretty" macros (like "bool" was in <stdbool.h>) -- that means that if
>>> C++ decides to introduce new pretty names like (std::)float16_t, we
>>> have no immediately interoperable name (like "float16_t") that would
>>> be valid C, since there is no macro "#define float16_t _Float_16",
>>> say.
>>> 
>>> * The proposed rules for C and C++ have different arithmetic conversion rules:
>>>   float + _Float32 -> _Float32
>>>   float + std::float32 -> float
>>> 
>>> * The above point is observable in that you get UB when passing a
>>> _Float32 vs a float as a vararg parameter due to the promotion rules
>>> (float promotes to double, _Float32 does not).
>> 
>>> It's possible I've missed some points (there are a few threads going
>>> with a lot of messages on each of them), but Fred Tydeman and Joseph
>>> Myers have both weighed in on the thread, which is helpful! ...
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20210922/49731f5b/attachment.htm>