<font size=2 face="sans-serif">2016/04/26, 12:00 EST:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Attendees: </b>Rajan, Jim,
Fred, Mike, David, Ian, </font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> New agenda items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> </b>None.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Last meeting action items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> </b>Ian: Talk to Lawrence
Crowl regarding proposing this IEEE-754: 2008 binding to C++ as well. -
In process.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Lawrence thought
C++ may accept the TS's by reference, but will need changes to point to
C++ sections.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can talk to IBM
C++ representative to get help on getting C++ changes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> For DFP, C++ make
it classes or template classes which made it not interoperable with C.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike: Need a C++
champion for DFP/this.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Ian: Retiring in
1.5-2 years.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Ian: Update and check
the items listed and flagged under Feature_List_Part_1. - Not done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Post updated versions
(post publication) of TS parts on the wiki. - Not done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> May not be the
right thing to do anymore.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: Note about our
group work from the IEEE - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan presented
it to WG14.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Possible Defects:
Part 2: Change set 2 (feature macros and tgmath.h): Create a new DR paper
for requiring the macro to be defined before tgmath.h inclusion. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Possible Defects:
Part 1: Change set 1 (typos): Change to make it 'fe'testexceptflag as the
typo fix. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Talk to David Keaton
to get this paper discussed when Mike is present (Monday). - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike could not
make it.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> New action items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike: Monitor the Part
5 DTS ballot to determine whether or not to put it in the IEEE-754 revision
bibliography.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Get a backup of the
CFP wiki.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Contact David Keaton
and Keld to see what we can do about getting hosting for our wiki and backups
for it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Follow up with
David (cc Jim) to see how long this TS can live and whether or not it needs
to be withdrawn or made into an IS after some period of time.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Invite David Keaton
to help with the new C revision discussion.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Next Meeting:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> May 24th, 2016, 12:00
EST, 9:00 PDT</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Same teleconference number.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Discussion:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> </b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> IEEE 754 revision:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Nothing new.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Continuing to move
along. Expect to converge in a couple of months.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Latest draft has
the 4 parts of this TS in the bibliography. Should part 5 be in the bibliography
as well?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Is there a
draft with all the changes since 2008? Or is it incremental.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike: Each draft
is based off the starter document which is 2008. Expects people will just
do a diff if they want to see the changes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Arith23:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> July 10-13.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim will be presenting
our work in a 30 minute segment. Rajan and Mike to review the slide deck.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> WG14:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan and Fred
attended.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> IEEE 754 note read
out and added to the minutes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 5: Accepted
as 2 month DTS ballot. No objects.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Parts 1-4: All
proposed defects accepted or declared editorial. All suggested changes
accepted as proposed changes. Defects in Open state.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> N2016: Passed at
18/1/5 vote. Requested a new paper with more details and syntax/semantics.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> The name
is the benefit.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> - Still
don't see a use for it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> -
Macros for limits is the only thing that might give it use.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> - Regrettable
that the issues of int were not learned or forgotten.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> -
Use it as an underlying typedef.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> - Might
be worth looking at stdint or other types like that which can save a lot
of headaches and problems.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR477: No debate.
Moved to review.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Documents submitted
to ballot need to be password protected/encrypted.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can be in
a web page that is password protected so the documents there don't need
to be.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 2 people have taken
the C standard source from NROFF and converted it to LaTeX.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Automated
tools.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> The C standard
will be moving to LaTeX.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can have proposals
for the next C standard starting next meeting.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 5:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Now out for DTS
ballot that will close in June.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Parts 1-4:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> In the past the
editor of the C Standard made a single DR with an entire list of all the
editorial changes he made.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> What happened in
part 3? Was the last one a defect or not?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Talk to David Keaton
to see if we should just update the TS or make a TC with listing only the
changes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Wiki cleanup:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Do we have a backup?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> How do we handle
hosting in the future?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Get a backup
of the wiki.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can put it up on
Mike or David's site or the WG14 site.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> WG14 probably has
a solution for storing backups. We can piggy back on that.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Fred: Contact
David Keaton and Keld to see what we can do about getting hosting for our
wiki and backups for it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: The documents
update action item: We need to keep in sync with the DR resolution. Do
we keep them as drafts of future revisions?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> What should be proposed
for the C standard:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Should we make
proposals as a group or individually?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Have this as the
main item for next meeting.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Need clarification
on how long a TS can live.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Rajan: Follow
up with David (cc Jim) to see how long this TS can live and whether or
not it needs to be withdrawn or made into an IS after some period of time.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: The C99 standard
did have a large effort to bring it up to date with IEEE pre this 2008
binding. Should something similar happen here?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Around 1990,
a numerical C extensions group was formed (floating point, complex, etc.)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Some of
it was put into C99. It was taken over by WG14 as well and produced TR's
with many parts where some were included as part of C99 (complex, floating
point for example).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> These
TR's were not written as changes to C so there was lot of work to get it
integrated.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Was a large
group then.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> We can try to get
the TS (all parts) into SD3 (Standing Document 3).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Standing document
3 (from </font><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):
</font><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1826.htm"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1826.htm</font></a><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Preliminary charter
for C2x: </font><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2021.htm"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2021.htm</font></a><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Perhaps
propose parts 1 and 2 as main body of the standard and the other parts
as conditionally normative annexes?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Ian: Part 3 literal
syntax is essential to make parts 1 and 2 useful.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: There
are no new types in part 1 so it doesn't need it, and part 2 has it's own
constant suffixes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Other parts of
the standard do have conditional parts (ex. Atomics, threads) as well.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> The TS's weren't
written as annexes. They were written as changes to the main standard.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 4 doesn't
need to be in the language part of the standard, just in the library part.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 5 would need
to be mixed and matched.</font><BR>