<font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>: Rajan, Jim, Fred,
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> 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"> Ian: There is an
incompatibility. C++ has a macro to control the precision used where C
leaves it to the implementation. Anything that shares a front end may have
done the C++ way so C should copy and provide a control (as a should vs
a shall). Without the macro they can do whatever they are doing today.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Ian: Find the
C++ standard reference and macro name for their handling of floating point
literals.</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"> All: totalorder* differ
for NaN payloads: Note that we don’t have approval to move up to 754 201x
yet. - Keep open: Revisit after we move up to the 754 draft.</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"> Fred: Ensure that the
items for P4_CR_for_rootn.pdf match IEEE. - Not done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Create a CR for Part
4 from P4_CR_for_rootn.pdf. - Done.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Consider the printf
for NaN(n-char-sequence) bounding issue.</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: See what FLT_EVAL_METHOD
does with respect to constants in C++ in his implementations. - Overridden
by the next item.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Ian: Find the C++ standard
reference and macro name for their handling of floating point literals.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Let the WG14 editors
know that we are waiting for the Part 1 integrated draft before putting
in Part 2.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Provide words for
a macro for printf n-char-sequence maximum length that the implementations
have to define.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Provide the NaN payload
specification editorial updates (positive signed floating point integers)
to the WG14 editors.</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"> Thursday, January 24th,
2019, 11:00 EST, 8:00 PST, 4PM UTC</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Same teleconference number.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> We now have sequence numbers
for the emails!</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Discussion:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> 754 revision:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Got the editorial
coordination report back. Not too much of a problem other than wanting
to sequentially number the tables and figures. Currently we kept the same
numbering since 1985 for figures and 2008 for tables and references to
them in emails so we want to keep it the same.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Need it signed
off before starting the sponsored ballot.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C++ Liaison:</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"> Part 1:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> N2314 -
TS 18661-1 + CLOSED CR/DRs + editorial changes + ISO template changes</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> N2315 -
same as N2314, except with change marks relative to published TS 18661-1</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Got positive
response from the WG14 editors.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 2:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Done
the same thing, but want to wait for the WG14 draft with the part 1 changes
in it so can update the footnotes with the new draft.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Let
the WG14 editors know that we are waiting for the Part 1 integrated draft
before putting in Part 2.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Do
we still want the WANT macros since it is now in the C standard?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: It
is there right now since it is only library related.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Ian: For
usability it is better to not require the user to specify a macro.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Can
create a macro to turn it off instead if wanted via a proposal.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 3:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks feasible.
Work in progress.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 4ab:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Consider
bringing this forward as an optional annex.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 5abcd:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Consider
bringing this forward as an optional annex.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Action item details:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Ensure that the items
for P4_CR_for_rootn.pdf match IEEE.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred to still verify.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Create a CR for Part 4
from P4_CR_for_rootn.pdf (</font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2309.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2309.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks good.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Consider the printf for
NaN(n-char-sequence) bounding issue (Fred’s 10/23 email “NAN(n-char-sequence)”
and responses)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Mixed up two
issues. Meant to talk about NaN() (which strtod accepts, but printf does
not emit). Don't think this is a problem even though inconsistent. I don't
think we need to make a change to this.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Just something
I noticed. Not a real problem.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Other issues:</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Update to suggested TC
for CFP CR25 totalorder parameters (</font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/Update_to_N2292_suggested_TC_for_CFP_CR25.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/Update_to_N2292_suggested_TC_for_CFP_CR25.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Updated to address
the tgmath issue.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks good.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred’s 10/24 email “printf,
NaN, infinity” and responses (Martin’s paper: </font><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2301.htm"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2301.htm</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: No way to
specify which form the user wants. Also the lack of bound is another issue.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: The n-char-sequence
is implementation semantics. Don't want to force implementations to change.
The security issue is valid. We can have a macro or change the specification
to give a max limit for n-char-sequence for printf (not strtod).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Fred: Provide
words for a macro for printf n-char-sequence maximum length that the implementations
have to define.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan re WG14 meeting:
6.16 pow divide-by-zero case [N 2271]</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks good to put
in. It will be added to the minutes as an item that will go into C2X.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> We will need to
review this when it is done by the WG14 editors.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan re WG14 meeting:
6.17 Min-max functions [N 2273]</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> FP study group
to split this into two separate proposals. One for parts 1 and 2 changes
based on the TS’s, and the other for part 3 that fits the conditionally
normative part 3 annex.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> [Cfp-interest 1218]</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/P1_CR_for_min-max_functions-20181127.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/P1_CR_for_min-max_functions-20181127.pdf</font></a><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/P2_CR_for_min-max_functions-20181127.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/P2_CR_for_min-max_functions-20181127.pdf</font></a><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Lets wait until
the changes are in the C2X draft and look into making these proposals.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred’s 2018/10/24 email
“[Cfp-interest] FLT_ROUNDS and FE_TONEARESTFROMZERO”</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Don't see this
new rounding mode in part 1.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> It was voted in
by WG14 in N2124.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: FLT_ROUNDS
should be obsolesced since it only deals with additions.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Defer to next meeting.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim’s 2018/11/01 email
“payload spec for C2X integration draft” and Rajan’s response</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> There were issues
with saying unsigned integers. We fixed it later, but those changes were
not sent to WG14.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Provide the
NaN payload specification editorial updates (positive signed floating point
integers) to the WG14 editors.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim’s 2018/11/09 email
“footnote problems in TS part 1”</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks good.</font><br><br><BR>