<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Sorry for the delay. I intended to pretty
these up but have not had the time yet.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here are the raw notes:</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">n1676: (Floating point TS Part 1)</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
2013/04/23, 11:00 am, Jim Thomas presenting</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
ISO/IEC TS 18661</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Looking at comments in n1702 for n1676</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Jim: One comment from Joseph, one from Willem, the remainder from
the subgroup participants</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
John: The next step is to get the document ready for its first ballot
step: The PDTS ballot. Two more chances to look at this document after
this meeting if it gets pushed out as a PDTS this meeting, which is the
goal. Each part should follow the next part by a year. This will allow
the subgroup to focus on part 2.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Jim: All these comments were looked at the April teleconference,
the recommendations in the last column. I will look at the non-editorial
comments.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
John: Editorial issues are for the project editor. If someone wants
to discuss that they can bring it up, but otherwise we can skip them.</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Comment #1: Comment 10 and 15 also refer to the wide character
functions. We will add them and atof as referred to in this comment.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Comment #2: Editorial, but has general issues: Suggested
changes vs changes. We will make the change. The "suggested changes"
text was taken from another TS.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Barry: They are suggested since they are non-normative.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Willem: The changes make this normative.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Blaine: When you adopt the TS, these changes become normative.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: The changes are in normative parts of the standard.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Clark: This isn't a proposal to change the standard. These
are changes relative to C11. Perhaps say "changes relative to C11".</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: There is a global statement that says this is relative
to C11.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Jim: Comment #19: We made llogb analogous to logb.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Jim: Comment #24: To keep consistency we want to change floating
type to real floating.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Benito: Next step is to ask Jim to prepare a paper with all these
changes.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Fred: The monthly teleconference will review this.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Benito: I want WG14 to review this. If you are not a part of the
teleconferences, you may be left behind so you should contact Jim to be
a part of it. A small editorial committee that makes sure only the changes
in n1702 are made to the document should be made now. After that, the new
document can go for PDTR.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: The n1676 document is different from the NWI proposal, but
the comments are for n1676.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Editorial committee: Fred, David, Benito</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Jim: A document should be ready in a week.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Benito: We'll have a teleconference if there are comments on the
applied changes. Otherwise we'll move forward. Jim gives the document to
John with change bars, John gives it to the review committee for whatever
time frame we decide. Jim then makes a document without change bars which
John then sends it to SC22 for a 90 day ballot. We'll have the results
for the October meeting.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Benito: Will give some ISO formatting changes to Jim as well in
a day or so to make it in for the review.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
n1690: (Floating point TS Part 2)</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: This is an update to the draft presented in a previous meeting.
The goal is to have this ready by sometime in August to be in the place
Part 1 is now. The change bars are relative to the last WG14 mailing. I
will go over the significant changes.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Jim: Page 1 (Scope): Lists all the aspects the Decimal TR didn't
cover.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Some discussion on why we didn't require Part 1, but given
it was committee direction, it was OK.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 2: Allows free standing implementations.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Some discussion on if anyone has done this, but given it
was committee direction, it was OK.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 6: Table of the preferred quantum exponents.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 8: Refers the binding table in part 1 to give the binding
to decimal types as well.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Willem: Annex F is binary. Should decimal not be a separate
annex?</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: This would lead to duplicating a large amount of Annex
F.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Willem: Changes for both part 1 and part 2 would make Annex
F unreadable.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: This is true for the standard itself due to the generic
floating points and decimal.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Willem: The reader may want these two annexes separate. It
would help to see how this looks like. i.e. One for Binary (IEEE binary
float) and one for Decimal (IEEE DFP).</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: The problem will be worse with Part 3 since it can affect
both 1 and/or 2.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Clive: Is the objective that Part 1 replaces Annex F?</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Part 1 makes changes to Annex F.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Willem: Is the intention that these parts will become part
of the standard or if they stay a TS permanently.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim*: Let me look at this and bring it back for Part 3 since
the issue applies there as well.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 10: Clarity</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 13: Preserving quantum exponent guidance for the compiler</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 16: Name changes of the types to match IEEE</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 17: Changed the names of the macros to be consistent with
Part 3</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 25-26: Same as above (pg 17)</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Jim: Page 34: Defines the tgmath changes</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Note: The comments make the spacing of the paper look different.
Not really that way in the real document.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Fred: Page 1 is listed as Roman numeral format.</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Rajan Bhakta<br>
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br>
ISO C Standards Representative for Canada<br>
C Compiler Development<br>
Contact: </font><a href=mailto:rbhakta@ca.ibm.com><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>rbhakta@ca.ibm.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">,
Rajan Bhakta/Toronto/IBM<br>
Telephone: (905) 413-3995</font>
<br>
<br>