<font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>: Rajan, Jim, Fred,
Mike, 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> Carry over 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"> David: Check the min/max
C specification to ensure it matches what IEEE has. - Not done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: Check the augmented*
C function specifications to ensure they match what IEEE has. - Not done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Remove screen-share
information from the agenda. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Recheck 'Functions
and infinity' issues with 754 draft 240. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Last meeting action items:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David H: Check the new
specification for inexact (action item 1) to make sure the new words still
work with 754. - Not done. Will do it this meeting and close it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Bring a proposal
forward for NaNQ and NaNS printf output to this group next meeting. - Done</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Look into reduction
functions and NaN's for optional exceptions. - In progress. On 754’s plate
now. Close it from our side.</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"> Jim: Remove for quantum
specification: “If x is NaN, the result is NaN”</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Make the change to
specify F.10.10a part 1 append as per Jim’s binding meeting minutes email
on 2018/08/23.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: totalorder* differ
for NaN payloads: Note that we don’t have approval to move up to 754 201x
yet. Revisit after we move up to the 754 draft.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: See which other
functions have the need to not trigger signaling NaNs but are functions
(need to be macros or have pointer parameters).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Look into comparison
macros and how to work them to avoid SNaN’s from signaling.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Create a part 1 CR
to make the totalorder* functions take pointer arguments.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: Look into the identity
conflicts for sqrt and rootn in IEEE.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Part 4: Make the
change as per Jim’s 2018/06/26 email about specification for inexact with
making the required operations raise inexact IFF it is inexact.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Part 1: Make the
changes to next* as per Jim’s email on 2018/08/20.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Give reference to
the C DR for normalized double double meaning bits can be changed.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Next Meeting(s):</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Tuesday, September 25th
2018, 11:00 EDT, 8:00 PDT, 3PM UTC</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </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 in ballot
in the microprocessor committee. Still a lot of discussion about going
to sponsor ballot.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike is dealing
with editorial issues.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> At least 1 month
before the ballot starts due to the editorial changes required. The ballot
usually lasts a month.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Unlikely to be
published this year. Should be ready by Spring WG14 meeting though.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C++ liaison:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Nothing.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Action item details (</font><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2288.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2288.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Min/max C specification
matches IEEE?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Leave for
next meeting.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Augmented* C function
specifications match IEEE? </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Leave for
next meeting.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 'Functions and
infinity' issues with 754 draft 240. See Fred’s 7/26 email “WG14 IEEE
754-C binding meeting minutes 2018/07/25” and responses.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> See Jim’s
response on the 2018/08/23.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Unsigned
infinity seems to be used when the sign does not matter. Our text is good.
No conflict.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> For quantum:
why did we state NaN gives NaN since that is default.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*: Jim:
Remove for quantum specification: “If x is NaN, the result is NaN”</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*: Jim:
Make the change to specify F.10.10a part 1 append as per Jim’s binding
meeting minutes email on 2018/08/23.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*: All:
totalorder* differ for NaN payloads: Note that we don’t have approval
to move up to 754 201x yet so what we have is only wrong when that standard
gets out. We can revisit after we move up to the 754 draft.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> totalorder*
signature change to avoid signaling.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred:
This applies to other functions as well such as samequantum.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim:
Macros are OK since they are not really argument passing.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*:
Fred: See which other functions have the need to not trigger signaling
nans but are functions (need to be macros).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred:
Macro’s don’t help for expressions since you can’t take the address
of them. Ex. A function call that returns a SNaN as the return value as
an argument to one of these operations.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim:
Need to look at this more. I implemented these before and don’t recall
changing the compiler.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*:
All: Look into comparison macros and how to work them to avoid SNaN’s
from signaling.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Needs
to be a part 1 CR.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*:
Jim: Create a part 1 CR to make the totalorder* functions take pointer
arguments.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> rootn: Jim:
Formatting issue since 754 lists everything out but we use a summary statement.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Still
that issue with rootn. There are a number of identities that would be good
to be true, but some seem to be contradictory. We need to figure out which
ones take priorities as a whole to avoid sqrt and rootn individually having
clear solutions but contradictory together.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*:
David: Look into the identity conflicts for sqrt and rootn in IEEE.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Regarding
formatting for Annex F, we never tried to format it like 754. It is a big
annex.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan:
Annex F is a C annex so should cater to that audience, not to us who need
to compare the standards.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> pown: CFP
doesn’t has qNaN, why does 754 mention those?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred/Jim:
It seems the general statement about NaN in = NaN out doesn’t work since
it is specified otherwise here.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Leave
it as is for now. If anyone feels like we need to change anything, bring
it up.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> reduction
functions:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David:
Can only short circuit if you have a SNaN.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David:
Decided to leave sub-exceptions out since you couldn’t quit on invalid
without getting all possible sub-exceptions for it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Let
754 settle on what should happen and we can reflect that.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 7.12.11 suggestion
for samequantumdN: Any reason there is no SNaN specification here but is
for others like this function?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mike: Not
sure. Been a while. Not useful if you have NaNs, but useful if you have
finite numbers.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: It
is in the IEEE 754 2008 and the new one in draft status.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: We
said explicitly we don’t have any exception including signalling in 754.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Review of specification
for inexact in Jim’s 6/26 email “AI about specification for inexact”.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim’s email
on 2018/06/26: F.3 is only binding information. Decided to put it in F.10.1.7</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Should
we say for the first sentence that it doesn’t raise inexact otherwise?
i.e. IFF</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Agree to
the change with changing the first part (required operations) to IFF.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*: Jim:
Part 4: Make the change as per Jim’s 2018/06/26 email about specification
for inexact with making the required operations raise inexact IFF it is
inexact.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Proposal for NaNQ
and NaNS printf output. See Fred’s 7/26 email “NaNQ, NaNS”.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Issues
with parsing data if token based (would fail).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> The
last paragraph in 5.12.1 seems to allow this as an optional conversion.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Add
in disallowing NANQ and possibly NANS for Annex F.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Reduction functions,
optional exceptions.
</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Leave for
later.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Issues with nextup
and nextdown. See Fred’s 7/30 email “nextup()” and responses.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> See
Jim’s email response on 2018/08/20. Editorial changes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*:
Jim: Part 1: Make the changes to next* as per Jim’s email on 2018/08/20.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> For
double-double: Ignore it since it is not IEEE.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *AI*:
Fred to give reference to the C DR for normalized double double meaning
bits can be changed.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred:
Applies to nextafter as well.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred:
Applications would probably expect normalized values for portability.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Issues with llogb.
See Fred’s 8/3 email “llogb(1.)” and responses. </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 6.2.6.2#3
Doesn’t allow -0 other than the operations listed here so it should not
be a problem.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Good
for the llogb and ilogb cases.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred:
OK with skipping it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David:
In 754 said we don’t talk about signed zero for integers at all.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Other issues? </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> None.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C2X Integration:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Mailing deadline
in September.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim has access
to the source repository for the standard.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Activities in progress:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Leave for later.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><BR>