<font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <b>Attendees:</b> Rajan, Fred, Mike,
Jim, David H</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"> Ian: See if there is an
incompatibility between C and C++ for constants being evaluated to a wider
format (Ex. FLT_EVAL_METHOD affects constants in C++, and wider return
values) - Keep open (Hubert: Not defined and left up to C)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Update the binding
table in parts 1 and 2 to handle the new IEEE-754:2018 functions when published.
- Keep open.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Look into why the
cbrt macro (DR16) has the parameters inside the generic selection.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: exp10m1: Look at
exp10m1 difference between the TS and 754 in more detail. - Done (review
today).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: pow: Add a note to
F10.4.4 pow to say it is the same as IEEE-754. - Done (review today).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: reduc_sumprod: "computed
sum" -> "computed dot product" for clarity. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Add preferred exponents
functions list to part 4. - Done (DR review below).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Get a N# and post
the new TC for DR13 to WG14. - Done (N2202).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Create a new DR for
arguments for comparison macros (</font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_incommensurate_arguments_for_comparison_macros.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_incommensurate_arguments_for_comparison_macros.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">)
- Done (N2203).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Draft a note for
roundTiesToEven for the exceptional case of two odd values. - Done (review
today).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Draft a proposal
for CR_DECIMAL_DIG corrections (with the removal of DECIMAL_DIG) and updating
the footnote (F.5). - Done (review today).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: DR15: Make the Suggested
TC the Proposed TC. - Done (review today).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Re-update activities
list. - Not done.</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"> Rajan: Ask Ian if he knows
of someone who can take over the C++ liaison role for him.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Unassigned: C footnote
232 uses the extraordinary roundoff error aspect from IEEE that was taken
out in the IEEE 2008 draft. Fix this?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Add in part of the
note for the pow function in part 1 somewhere as a change to F.3 to restate
that the specifications should match IEC 60559.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Get a DR against
part 4 for </font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_missing_specification_of_preferred_quantum_exponents.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_missing_specification_of_preferred_quantum_exponents.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Put the words for
the roundTiesToEven with a change to Annex F as a part 1 DR as per his
note on 2018/02/18 with the change of "which could produce" ->
"whose nearest neighbors are".</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: </font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/changes_for_obsolescing_DECIMAL_DIG.pdf:><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/changes_for_obsolescing_DECIMAL_DIG.pdf:</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Make the changes to the type_ to reflect the FLT, DBL and LDBL prefixes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: TS DR15 (</font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_macros_for_non-arith_formats-20180211.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_macros_for_non-arith_formats-20180211.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Change "Suggested"
to "Proposed", "into a proposed" -> "as is
into a proposed" </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred, Rajan: Check if
the _Generic replacement suppress macro expansion.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Get a new N document
for the new proposed TC for TS DR16.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Write up the TS DR13
2018/02/18 Jim's email as a suggested TC.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: Look into the IEEE
binding differences to see if they are real issues (from Fred's email on
2018/02/18).</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Issues:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Does CR_DECIMAL_DIG have
the same issues as DECIMAL_DIG?</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Next Meetings:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> March 13th, 2018, 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"> Still finding little
items that need to be looked at, but getting smaller and less contentious.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looking good for
completion. Good shape to move forward for ballot. March 23rd will possibly
be the final technical draft.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C++ liaison:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Nothing. Need a
successor for this role.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Rajan: Ask Ian
if he knows of someone who can take over the C++ liaison role for him.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Action item details:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> exp10m1 underflow:
Want to say the same thing as exp2m1.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: C
footnote 232 uses the extraordinary roundoff error aspect from IEEE that
was taken out in the IEEE 2008 draft. Unassigned action item.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred:
Sounds like a C11 DR.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim:
We shouldn't change the definition of range error, but should change the
footnote.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> pow consistency
with 754 (Jim's email on 2018/02/06): Seem to have already said this.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: I
think we need the note. But can have it as a general sentence in F.1.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: Should
we have a special case for pow?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: We
should not add it for pow due to out of sync and too many extra additions
making the standard less readable/too large. OK with making the last sentence
of the note an editorial addition to F.3.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *preferred exponents
for part 4 (</font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_missing_specification_of_preferred_quantum_exponents.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_missing_specification_of_preferred_quantum_exponents.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):
Expected DR19.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *roundTiesToEven
for case of two odd neighbors (Fred's email on 2018/02/18):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: roundTiesToEven
is a 754 term. It needs to be qualified with a preamble to link it to the
TS-1.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Should
this be in Annex F or the main part of the standard? Yes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: Should
say the nearest neighbors are, not that we produce both of them.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> "which
could produce" -> "whose nearest neighbors are"</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> fix-ups for removal
of DECIMAL_DIG (Jim's email on 2018/02/17, </font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/changes_for_obsolescing_DECIMAL_DIG.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/changes_for_obsolescing_DECIMAL_DIG.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: The
type_DECIMAL_DIG should have type_ be the type prefix (FLT, DBL, LDBL).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim:
Yes, this needs to be fixed throughout the proposal.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: The
F.5 fix needed the to-nearest rounding to get the identity function (it
is incorrect in C11).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Make
the changes to the type_ to reflect the FLT, DBL and LDBL prefixes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> TS DR15 (</font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_macros_for_non-arith_formats-20180211.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/DR_for_macros_for_non-arith_formats-20180211.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Need to change
"Suggested" to "Proposed", "into a proposed"
-> "as is into a proposed" </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> TS DR16: Parenthesis movement:
Unknown why that was done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Does the _Generic
replacement suppress macro expansion?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Fred, Rajan: Check
if the _Generic replacement suppress macro expansion?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Get a new
N document for the new proposed TC for TS DR16.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Email Issues:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> TS DR13: Jim's
email (2018/02/18) for part 3 type generic macros in response to Josephs
email:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Ex.
for fM prefix, _FloatMx or _FloatN has to be present otherwise the macro
wouldn't be present.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> It
is possible arguments may be coerced so the macros won't be correctly rounded.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Could
have not specified functions and just say a single rounding and let the
implementation decide how to do it, but did not choose that route. This
current way can have multiple roundings.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Write
up the TS DR13 2018/02/18 Jim's email as a suggested TC.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Classification
macros and clearing flags (2018/02/09):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: F.8.6
seems to cover it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred's email 2018/02/18:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: The
C specification is spread out (ex. general description, annex F, general
NaN information, etc.).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> First
one is covered by the general NaN rules.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred:
Agree.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Second:
remainder(+/-0, y): Seems to be an issue.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *David:
Look into these IEEE binding differences to see if they are real issues.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: min/max
and payload still need to be looked at from the latest draft.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Other issues:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> TS updates:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Jim: The editors draft is available but is not up to date
with the DRs.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Keeping as Word format (no conversion into LaTeX).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
See if we should keep the documents up to date for each meeting
regardless of whether the drafts have been accepted or not.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Binding for IEEE 754-2018:
Didn't get to. Next meeting.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C2X integration: Didn't
get to. Next meeting.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Activities (</font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/in_flight-20171004.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/in_flight-20171004.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):
Didn't get to. Next meeting.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C Standard use of "Floating"
vs "Floating-point": Didn't get to. Next meeting.</font><BR>