<font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>: Rajan, Jim, Mike,
David H., David C.</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: Call David Keaton
and ask for advice on how and when to present proposals for Parts 3-5.
- Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David K: Go ahead
and do it whenever ready.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Write up a proposed
TC for DR501 to make the DECIMAL_DIG macro obsolescent. - Done (discussed
below).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Make sure we're OK
with DDR9/DR11's change. - Done (discussed below).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Ask the IEEE-754
revision mailing list if the payload for NaN's must be non-negative (0
and up allowed). - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR set 3: DDR1.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Reflector message
14561: Fix up "macro argument" to something along the lines of
7.25#3. - Done (discussed below).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR set 3: DDR2.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> New action items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Review the posted
proposals (on CFP wiki with date 2016/09/01) by next meeting as it is the
last one before the Markham mailing.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: DRS2: DDR7: Look
to see if there is a simpler way of showing the change.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: DRS2: DDR9: Add
code examples for implementers to test out and send it out via email.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: DRS2: DDR2: Write
a paper with this text (DECIMAL_DIG_obsolescence.pdf) for WG14.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Make SC22WG14.14586
a proposal for C2X.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Respond to Joseph's
comments on SC22WG14.14586, SC22WG14.14587 via WG14 reflector.</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"> Tuesday February 28th,
2017, 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"> Close to completion.
One major issue left: max/min.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C++ liaison:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> No update.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> What should be proposed
for the C standard (C2X):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Review the posted
proposals (on CFP wiki with date 2016/09/01).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Decide whether
or not to submit the proposals for the Markham mailing, along with any
alternatives.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DRs:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Set 2:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
DDR9/DR11 (%a formatting):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Go ahead with the change since it makes it an IEEE
conversion and increases the utility.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
*Rajan: DRS2: DDR9: Add code examples for implementers
to test out.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
*Jim: DRS2: DDR7: Look to see if there is a simpler way of
showing the change.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
DR501 (DECIMAL_DIG_obsolescence.pdf):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> We
can make it obsolescent or try to change the C standard to allow wider.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Consensus
is to make it obsolescent.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim:
DRS2: DDR2: Write a paper with this text (DECIMAL_DIG_obsolescence.pdf)
for WG14.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> There
is a problem with the original proposal: if a wider type was later added,
there would be compatibility issues with decimal_dig changing.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Set 3:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DDR1:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike:
Similar to the decimal case where it is specified this way.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks
good.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DDR2 (SC22WG14.14561):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks
good.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Other:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> SC22WG14.14586:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Not strictly
a defect. More of a feature.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can be considered
an oversight.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Make
this (SC22WG14.14586) a proposal for C2X.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> For FLT_ROUNDS,
backwards compatibility is enough to not make the change.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> SC22WG14.14587:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Nothing
to add.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Seems to
be such an esoteric case that no one will hit it. Shouldn't dwell on it.</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><BR>