<font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>: Rajan, Jim, Mike,
David H, Ian</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> New agenda items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> None.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Last meeting action items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Check one of the
files from the EDG backup for testing the off site backup. - Not done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> General: Need to look
through our docs to see what is in C but not in IEEE 754. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike and Jim looked
at the quantum operation which will be proposed in the next IEEE 754 meeting.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Not proposing llquantexp
function (since the exponent can be gotten with logb).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Look through WG14
proposals and let Rajan and Jim know if there is anything that we need
to bring up. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: DDR9: Update type
style. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: DDR9: Update examples
as per Fred's note. - Done.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> New action items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: DR Set 3: Change
positive-signed to non-negative.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Next Meeting:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <i>Thursday </i>December
1st, 2016, 12:00 EDT, 9:00 PST</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"> IEEE 754 revision:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Progressing.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Adopted twoSum
(augmentedSum/augmentedProduct are the actual names).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Possibility
to propose this to C if people want to.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Due to hardware
interest.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> quantum and arcpi
due to C standard.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C++ liaison:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Didn't get to it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Likely going to
be a much larger project.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> WG14 meeting (Rajan's
email):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Everything went
very well. All DR's accepted and changes proposed were accepted.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Proposals for C2X
were unanimously endorsed to be a part of C2X.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C17 - Technical
Corrigenda will be the next focus. Then C2X after that.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Array Section reduction
functions may impact us. Will need to see the paper when it comes out.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> TC for the TS's
were not started/discussed, but there should not be too much issue (with
respect to the time limits or format of the TC).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> The drafts posted
on our web page have some of the DR changes integrated into them already
(which is different from what was published now).</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> What should be proposed
for the C standard:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Adding the
math functions in part 4 and the pragma's in part 5 (other than try/catch)
may be easy for WG14 to accept.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can wait until
we see parts 1 and 2 in the draft before proposing other parts/features.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Types is probably
the most complex one to add due to the changes throughout the standard.
We can possibly have the C standard add a reference to the TS part 3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DRs:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C11 DR501: Will
need to clarify.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> CFP DR9: The example
can be discussed in the April meeting (N2094), but don't need to do anything
specific/special now.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR Set 3: DDR1
(</font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DRs3-20161024.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DRs3-20161024.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can we use
non-negative?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Sounds
better and fits existing wording. Will also address the issue before the
STC.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim:
DR Set 3: Change positive-signed to non-negative.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Note that
this is a substantive change (not trivial, can break implementations).</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Other:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> None.</font><BR>