[Cfp-interest 2551] Correction to 2022/09/21 minutes - Next meeting time

Tue Oct 11 06:16:41 PDT 2022

Hello,

In the minutes last time, for the next meeting I had listed 3PM UTC, but it should be 4PM UTC (to keep the same relative time for some of those attendees that have an hour shift).

If anyone can’t make that time, please let the group know.

Regards,

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

IBM
On Sep 21, 2022, at 9:22 AM, Rajan Bhakta <rbhakta at us.ibm.com<mailto:rbhakta at us.ibm.com>> wrote:

  Attendees: Rajan, Jim, Fred, Vivian, Damian, David H.

  New agenda items (https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n3056.pdf<https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n3056.pdf>):
    None.

  Next Meeting(s):
    November 16, 2022, 3PM UTC
    ISO Zoom teleconference
    Please notify the group if this time slot does not work.

  Carry over action items:
    Done unless specified otherwise.
    Details below in "Carry-over action items results" section.

  Last meeting action items:
    Done unless specified otherwise.
    Details below in “Action items results” section.

  New action items:
    Jim/Fred: Re editorial review comment JT-096: Reword "matches" -> "uses" and reword value 2's description to say something like "following the specification for IEC 60559 operations". Also say that it uses the IEC 60559 storage format.
    Rajan: I can send David H. and David K. an email seeing what they are asking for to be a valid liaison for IEEE to WG14.
    All: Ensure the email addresses on the wiki are up to date. Can send the updated information to Jim Thomas or edit the wiki themselves.
    Jim: Ensure the email addresses on the wiki are up to date.

  C++ liaison:
    Nothing new.

  C23 integration:
    New draft available. N3054.
    Revised C23 schedule: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2984.pdf<https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2984.pdf>
    Comments and discussions when the CD ballot comes out must be through the national body, not CFP.

  C23 draft review:
    See CFP2529 and follow up, CFP2538, CFP2543, CFP2544.
    Fred: Some of my comments did not seem to show up. May be my pdf viewer.
      Jim: Seems to be the viewer.
    Jim: Most comments are formatting problems or table/list/annex issues. Annex H for example. Some for italics/bold/fonts. Not much consistency. Hoping that got cleared up. Color was inconsistent too but it will be removed for the ballot document.
    Fred: My list I sent in was incomplete, just sent in some as examples.
    Jim: JT-096: If you have 2, what does that parenthetical mean?
      Fred: All subnormal support?
      Jim: Intel has a pure library for all IEEE 754 operations. Would that fit?
      Rajan: It can be more type specific information than what you get in Annex F's conformance macro.
      Jim: Can say following the specification for IEC 60559 formats in Annex F, but not necessarily full conformance to Annex F.
      Fred: Without subnormals, it can still be 1 since it has the right format, but not the operations.
      Jim: Yes.
      David H: 'uses' instead of 'matches' is better for the 0, 1, 2 cases a well as the starting paragraph text.
      ^Jim/Fred: Re JT-096, reword "matches" -> "uses" and reword value 2's description to say something like "following the specification for IEC 60559 operations"
    JT-097:
      Fred: If you sometimes support subnormals, is TRUE_MIN useful?
      Jim: The CD version of the draft may have this removed already.

  Carry-over action items results:
    David H: Get an example for the scaled reduction functions (perhaps by asking Jason or Jim or looking into the IEEE references). - Not done.
      See CFP2547 for a starting point.
      David: I can do the pseudo code that looks like C. But need someone to review it. When I'm there, I'll ask for help. This was Khan's original justification. I expect anything involving factorials can get like this pretty quickly.

    David H: Get an example for the augmented arithmetic functions (perhaps by asking Jason or Jim or looking into the IEEE references). - Not done.
      David: Have asked Jason and Jim.
      Fred: I would recommend complex multiply/divide.
      David: A good thought. Complex multiplication is probably the best. Simple enough to understand and complicated enough to see the value of the augmented functions.

  Action items results (from previous meeting):
    Rajan: Send Ian information on joining SCC's SC22 mirror committee.
      Done. No reply.

    Everyone: If you are in doubt about your membership, contact Rajan, Jim, and Fred.
      See [Cfp-interest 2517] Fwd: [WG 14 SG Chairs] Study Group Membership
      Fred: OK  now, but may be my last year unless something cheaper is found.
      David: What do I need to show I am good from IEEE's side?
      ^Rajan: I can send you an email seeing what they are asking for to be a valid liaison for IEEE to WG14.

    Jim: I can update Rajan's comment and send it up for review before I submit it Monday.
      See [Cfp-interest 2538] CFP review of C23 draft N3047 - documents

  Other issues
    Review TS part 4 revision
      See [Cfp-interest 2454] Re: post-C23 update for TS 18661-4

    TS part 5 revision

  Others?
    ^All: Ensure the email addresses on the wiki are up to date. Can send the updated information to Jim Thomas.

_______________________________________________
Cfp-interest mailing list
Cfp-interest at oakapple.net<mailto:Cfp-interest at oakapple.net>
http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest<http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20221011/4a254837/attachment-0001.htm>