<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">2013/08/08:</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>Attendees</b></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>:</b></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim, Mike, David, Ian, Rajan, Marius (10:00 PDT)</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>Old action items</b></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim to send email about WANT macros - Done</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> All to review July 10th email (5.2.4.2.2 reorg) - Done</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>Next meeting:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> September 10th, 2013, 12:00 EST, 9:00 PDT</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Same teleconference number</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>New action items:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Changes to make to part 2:</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 1: does not cover -> neither</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 3: Remove lists unless there is an actual change in the identifiers</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 8: Look at the phrase "they have the" to see if other places may have the existing wording</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 19: Line 4: Font on stdio.h is wrong</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Changes to make to all parts: Want macro name: __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_{BFP, DFP, TYPES, FUNCS, ...}__</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>Current status:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Ballot on part one ends on August 16th and this is the first time we get to look at comments</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim will be on vacation from the 16th to the 29th</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> WG14 mailing deadline is September 2nd, but John will allow posting docs until September 16th to still discuss it in the meeting</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> WG14 meeting: September 30th to October 3rd</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim can work on speculative draft based on comments discussing over email before the September meeting</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim will get the part 2 draft ready for the WG14 posting</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>Part 2 discussion:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *Page 1: does not cover -> neither</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 3: Grouping the changes here is a lot of information at the start, but it seems to be easier for implementers and for maintenance.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *The lists are only present for review purposes, but will be removed for the actual change</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> We can have a list of identifiers introduced per want macro.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 8:</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Mike: Rather than "they have the" -> "they correspond to the"</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Other places may have the existing wording. I will check.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Correspond seems too weak.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 11:</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Should we make a corresponding change to the standard floating types even though the clarification has nothing to do with the new floating point standard update.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Better to try and pass part 1 and part 2 and handle it as a DR</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Mike: We could also handle this as part of the comments for part 1</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: We can provide editorial suggestions based on the ballot even if there were no comments on this part</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Do we want to add in the other -ve value text to allow implementation defined behavior?</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> We can come back to this in Part 3 if needed.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *Page 19: Line 4: Font on stdio.h is wrong</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 21:</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> This is different from other standard pragmas in that some implementations do macro expansion in pragmas and others don't. Since the values are std defined pragmas this may have implications we have not considered.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>Want macro name:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Keep functional part for code readability</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Drop EXT#, LIB since they add no value</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Keep IEC, 60559 to identify it</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *Name: __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_{BFP, DFP, TYPES, FUNCS, ...}__</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">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: rbhakta@us.ibm.com, Rajan Bhakta/Houston/IBM</font><br>
</body></html>