<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">2013/10/10, 12:00 EST:</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">: Jim, David, Rajan, Fred, Mike, Ian, Marius</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">:</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: GB-JWT comments: Update the response column to the result of our discussion and make it our teleconference group suggested responses. - Done</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: JWT comments: Submit them as "Editor's comments" with "Study group recommendations" with "Agree" in the last column. - Done</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Talk to John to see if we should post a draft with the changes we've agreed to so far. - Done - Answered yes.</font><br>
<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"> November 13th, 2013, 12:00 EST, 9:00 PDT - Wednesday</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"><b> New action items:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Part 2: Paragraph 12 should have (+, -, * or /) -> (+, -, * and /)</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Part 2: Page 8: Line 1: "are distinct types from float" -> "are distinct from the types </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Part 2: Page 32: The - sign seems to be in a different font and seems high. Try and make it look better.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Part 2: Page 46: Change to split the table above into two 4 line chunks and use the individual rules per chunk.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Part 2: Binding DFP applicable clauses in Annex F tighter to C11. Ex. Saying something like "An implementation that defines __STDC_IEC_559_DFP__ shall conform to the specifications in clauses ... in this annex"</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Look into using the Wiki as a backup for the documents in Word format.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> All: Review Part 3. Comments via email.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> All: Let Jim know of any changes to part 2 as soon as possible.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b> Fall 2013 WG14 meeting:</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Part 1: Went over both spreadsheets of comments, WG14 agreed to all comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Next step is to provide draft with all the changes and have a WG14 3 person review group review the changes.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> The resulting draft will go to DTS ballot (last step for a Technical Specification for publication).</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Part 2: Jim gave a presentation on the main changes. No serious concerns raised.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> WG14 agreed to move Part 2 to PDTS ballot (first ISO ballot). See Jim's email for steps on that.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Part 3: Jim gave a presentation on the main changes. No serious concerns raised. They were satisfied with the changes to the non-arithmetic types (main point of contention in the last meeting).</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Next step is to have an updated draft in the next WG14 meeting to propose to move towards PDTS (first ISO ballot).</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> A long email message was sent to John Benito from Hungary by Szabolcs Nagy.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim, Rajan, Fred worked on them during the meeting.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> One of the items was related to part 1 (discussed later).</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> An email from Joseph Myers regarding the GB comment responses.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Did not result in changes to Part 1.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b> Part 1 (<a href="http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/n1774.pdf">http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/n1774.pdf</a>):</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim has submitted the draft with all changes to John Benito, who is still on vacation. Still looking for when the review committee will meet.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> The Hungary email had some misunderstandings, some that were good comments which could be DR's.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Annex F allows wider arguments, results and operations which is not what IEC 60559 specifies.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Paragraphs 11 and 12 on page 12 in n1774 (front page of CFP wiki) are designed to address this.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *AI* Paragraph 12 should have (+, -, * or /) -> (+, -, * and /)</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> These paragraphs make sure we have a binding to the IEC 60559 operations even with wider evaluation.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b> Part 2 (<a href="http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp2-20131010.pdf">http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp2-20131010.pdf</a>):</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Changes from the October 4th draft based on Fred's comments. No other comments from other members.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Fred: Didn't like my comments on the forward?</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Based on the ISO template so I don't want to change it unless ISO tells me.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 3 (5.3): No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Line 21: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Line 28: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 7: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 8: Line 1: No comments for first change. *AI* "are distinct types from float" -> "are distinct from the types float"</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Line 16: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 9: Line 5: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 10: Line 6: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 14: Due to part 1 changes adding paragraphs 11 and 12. No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 31: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 32: The - sign seems to be in a different font and seems high. *AI* Jim to try and make it look better.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 36: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 37: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 39: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 40: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 42: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 44: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 45: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 46: Mike: Solves the problem. An alternative change is to split the table above into two 4 line chunks and use the individual rules per chunk. This avoids the implicit ordering of rules.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Ian: The sentences now are in opposite order to the functions.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: The d is not a prefix in d32.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Mike: Another fix is to say "the prefixes are d32, d64, f, d".</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *AI* Do Mikes first alternative change.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Page 47: No comments.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Freds comments (email on 2013/10/07, titled Re: moving Part 2 forward):</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 12.3 (accuracy): Jim: The connection to annex F is in Clause 2.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> The issue is we haven't made any changes to C11 that link the DFP specifications that rely on Annex F to C11.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: Should we move text from this into Annex F clause 1 saying something like "An implementation that defines __STDC_IEC_559_DFP__ shall conform to the specifications in clauses ... in this annex"?</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> *AI* Jim: Make the changes along the lines above to bind Part 2 tighter to C11 with respect to following Annex F clauses.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Internal representations: Jim: Left as a DR or an editorial change for Larry from WG14 meeting.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> The goal is to have the ballot done so the resolution can be done in the April 2014 WG14 meeting.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b> Part 3 (<a href="http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/n1758.pdf">http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/n1758.pdf</a>):</b></font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim showed the slide set shown in the Fall 2013 WG14 meeting as an overview of changes (<a href="http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/TS18661-3_slides.pptx">http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/CFP/WebHome/TS18661-3_slides.pptx</a>).</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Example 2: If you also had 80-bits, _Float32x could be 64, 80 or 128, while _Float64x could be 80, 128 as long as it was at least as wide as _Float32x.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Fred: Example 3: Are you are missing _Decimal32x?</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: No, you only need extended on basic types which IEEE does not have _Decimal32 there.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Ian: Example 1: _Float24 possible? Ex. _Float16x?</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: No, since _Float16 is not a basic type and neither is _Float24.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> One of the comments from Nagy was regarding the parts not talking about expression evaluation methods.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: We should look at doing it even though it seems to naturally fit in part 5.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> An alternative is to say it is entirely implementation defined how it fits in.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Prefer saying implementation defined and/or that Part 5 will have a recommended specification for this.</font><br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Jim: We should think through it now on how to handle this.</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></body></html>