<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hello,</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here are the results from the WG14 meeting
for items relating to our group.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">These are rough notes, so please let
me know if anyone needs clarification.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Proposals:</b></font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2117: Part 3 (extended & interchange
types)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Concern about the lack
of implementation experience.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Any group demanding these
features?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Not comfortable to go
with this yet.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Put in SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2118: Part 4a (math functions)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Concerns about these names
being in the user namespace, especially with C++ due to the reserved names
rules.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> With no WANT macro,
the functions still can be used by a user in code and by other library
functions.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Put in SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2119: Part 4b (reduction functions)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Same concern with the
namespace.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can reserve these
names in C17 to avoid this issue?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Put in SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2120: Part 5a (evaluation pragmas)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Blaine: All part 5 should
be together, not separate.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Put in SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2121: Part 5b (optimization pragmas)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Nothing new.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Put in SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2122: Part 5c (reproducible results)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Nothing new.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Put in SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2123: Part 5d (alternate exception
handling)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Non ignorable pragma.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can be tweaked
to avoid this. Ex. FEDIVZERO(expression)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Do we want to add
N2123 to SD3? 6/8/4</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Do we want something
along the lines of N2123 in SD3? 12/2/4</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Direction to do something
like this, but not this.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2124:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Note issue of bits in
hardware for rounding modes may not be enough.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Put in SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2125:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DDR1: DR12. Accepted.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DDR2: DR13. Accepted.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> On the edge of
invention, not really a DR. But will accept it as a DR since it is a TS.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DDR3: DR14. Accepted.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Parenthetical makes
it seem less important. Perhaps remove them?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: From now on, just create
them as DR's and not draft DR's.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">N2128: Default rounding mode</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Add to SD3:
4/7/7</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Not adding to SD3.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>C DR's:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR500: Move to review.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR501:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Comments:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: double_t
is a floating type that allows this.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Why is it not possible
to have DECIMAL_DIG be the largest floating type?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Should we obsolesce
DECIMAL_DIG? 6/0/7 (Yes)</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Floating point DR's:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR1: Move to closed.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR2: Move to closed.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR3: Move to closed.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR4: Move to closed.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR5: Move to review.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR6: Move to review.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR7: Move to review.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR8: Move to review.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR9: Leave in open, taking N2127
as the second change.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR10: Move to review.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> DR11: Add the example in N2126
into the TS.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Concern: Precision now
means something different based on the datatype.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Which of matching %g or
matching %a with other datatypes where the number after the decimal point
(the precision) should be used instead of significant digits (as with %g).</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Tasks that the group can take on/continue:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 1. Write and address DRs against
the TS as needed, and submit them to WG 14.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 2. Propose to WG 14 incorporating
the TS (or parts of it) into C2x.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 3. Support accepted proposals
through the C2x standardization process.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 4. Write proposals for a C binding
for the new features in IEEE 754-2018, and followup with WG 14. This is
a compatible change to 754, with only a very few new (recommended) features,
which if addressed by our current efforts would give us another 10 or so
years for FP standard support.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 5. Revise parts of the TS that
are not incorporated into C2x to be based on C2x.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Result: Keep the group going.
Do everything listed above.</font><br><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>