<font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>: Rajan, Jim, Ian,
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.</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"> Fred: Ensure that the
items for P4_CR_for_rootn.pdf match IEEE. - 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"> Ian: Find the C++ standard
reference and macro name for their handling of floating point literals.
- See CFP1236, Done.</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. - Done.</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. - Done.</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. - Done. Discussed below.</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: Post the draft of
Part 1 integrated into C2x on the CFP site.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Make the first change
as per CFP1238.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Rework Part 3 as
an Annex to add a note saying there is no _Decimal32x since IEC60559 doesn't
have _Decimal32 as a basic type.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Make the _EPSILON
change as per CFP1238.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Make the forth change
as per CFP1238 to add in the hyperbolic versions of cos/sin/tan.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Make the fifth change
as per CFP1238 for the list changes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Take a look at part
3 annex (</font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3x-annex-20190119.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3x-annex-20190119.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">)
draft before next meeting.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Update the proposal
to try again to integrate part 4a into C2X.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David: Check with IEEE
group to see if there is any implementations for Part 4b functions (hardware
or software).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Review the rationale
for part 5 a, b, c proposal.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> All: Review </font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Say to WG14 that
CFP supports removing the WANT macros and leaving the rest as is due to
Fred's reasoning above.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Check with David
to see if we are going to discuss the WANT macro issue on the agenda.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: Send links to papers
of interest to CFP from N2319-N2323. </font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> Next Meeting(s):</b></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Wednesday, February 20th,
2019, 11:00 EST, 8:00 PST, 4PM UTC</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"> 754 revision:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Moved to sponsor
ballot until February 20th.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Got 4 votes, need
33 more for a valid ballot. Need 3/4 for approval.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Set up ballot review
committee.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Still a number
of open suggestions to deal with.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Have a document
listing new features and describing older ones that are often misunderstood.
See </font><a href=http://754r.ucbtest.org/background/><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://754r.ucbtest.org/background/</font></a><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"> None.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> C2X integration:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> WG14 meeting pre-meeting
mailing deadline: March 18th, 2019.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Meeting
information: </font><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2318.htm"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2318.htm</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">,
Venue information N2308 (linked to in the agenda).</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 1:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> We have
a draft of this integrated in already. It is being reviewed already by
Fred.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Post
the draft of Part 1 integrated into C2x on the CFP site.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 2:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Need to
rebase on Part 1 + C2x draft and then send it out to the WG14 editors for
Part 2 integration.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 3: Draft annex
for review (</font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3x-annex-20190119.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3x-annex-20190119.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">)</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Also see
Fred’s email [Cfp-interest 1231]</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> From CFP1238:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> First
change: OK.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
*Jim: Make the first change as per CFP1238.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Second
change: IEEE doesn't specify it (no _Decimal32 basic format to extend).
Perhaps say that there is no basic format?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Mike: Not much empirical use of _Decimal64 either. Perhaps make the statement
stronger.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
David: Is there a corresponding issue for binary16?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Yes, but we don't want to change anything here non-editorially.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Perhaps have a note saying there is no _Decimal32x since IEC60559 doesn't
have _Decimal32 as a basic type.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
*Jim: Rework Part 3 as an Annex to add a note saying there is no _Decimal32x
since IEC60559 doesn't have _Decimal32 as a basic type.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Jim: Already changed the f32xsqrt(n) example on the last page that used
to be d32x (in the pre-annex form of part 3).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Third
change (*_EPSILON):</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Fred: Already been done as a CR and accepted by WG14.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
*Jim: Make the _EPSILON change as per CFP1238.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fourth
change (_FloatN_t): OK</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
*Jim: Make the forth change as per CFP1238 to add in the hyperbolic versions
of cos/sin/tan.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fifth
change: OK</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
*Jim: Make the fifth change as per CFP1238 for the list changes.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *All: Take
a look at part 3 annex (</font><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3x-annex-20190119.pdf"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/cfp3x-annex-20190119.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">)
draft before next meeting.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 4ab:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Currently
up to us to update the TS since WG14 doesn't want to add them in.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: I think
they should be a part of the standard as they are completion functions
not esoteric ones. Ex. The exp functions.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David:
They are also widely implemented.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim:
For reciprocal square root, rootn, pown, etc. there is rational to have
them. Performance impacts with those and can't replace them with optimizations
due to different results and single rounding. The compound functions have
growth and decay applications.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim:
The half revolution trig functions avoid roundoff error in arguments, and
gives exact results for multiples of PI. Also a performance benefit.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David:
There is a 754 background document for the power functions if that is helpful.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Jim: Update
the proposal to try again to integrate part 4a into C2X.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: For
the reduction functions (4b), the rationale is portable performance. How
strong is this given the parallel world?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> David:
It's not for portable reproducibility. It's a hypothetical performance
advantage since I don't think it's been implemented in a portable way.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Can
wait for further implementations so keep it as a TS for these functions.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *David:
Check with IEEE group to see if there is any implementations for Part 4b
functions (hardware or software).</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Part 5abcd:</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: There
is prior art for a lot of this like reproducibility, just different ways
of doing it per implementation. I would like to re-propose a, b, c with
new rationale since it seems ripe for standardization given the different
ways of spelling or mechanisms of doing it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: My
experience in testing is that most compilers don't even do the C99 standard
pragmas.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *All: Review
the rationale for part 5 a, b, c proposal.</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"> C++ standard reference
and macro name for their handling of floating point literals (CFP1236).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Ian to talk to
the IBM C++ standards rep again.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Macro for printf n-char-sequence
maximum length that the implementations have to define.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> See Fred’s [Cfp-interest
1223] and Jim’s [Cfp-interest 1234].</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks good.</font><br><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"> See Fred’s email
[Cfp-interest 1222]</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Looks good.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> NaN payload specification
editorial updates (positive signed floating point integers).</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> See Jim’s 1/9
email “AI about update to NaN payload spec”</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdf</font></a><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *All: Review </font><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdf><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/update_for_C2X_payload_functions.pdf</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">.</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"> Optional features in C:
WG14 email thread “optional features for IEC 60559 integration”.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Some proposals
were a different header, function prefixes, etc.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Fred: In a TS it
needs a WANT macro since it is not a part of the standard. It is not needed
once it is a part of the standard.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Can always
use the STDC_VERSION macro to avoid collisions, but still has problems
with getting the old functions.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Rajan: Say to
WG14 that CFP supports removing the WANT macros and leaving the rest as
is due to Fred's reasoning above.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Jim: Perhaps we
should propose what should be removed from what we have there now. We can
follow the _Complex model for _Decimal.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Rajan: Check with
David to see if we are going to discuss the WANT macro issue on the agenda.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> WG14 papers N2319-N2323
by Tydeman: See (SC22WG14.16023), New documents on the WG 14 website.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> *Fred: Send links
to papers of interest to CFP from N2319-N2323.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Consider C17 footnote
232: Is it ok?</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> P3 has tgmath example
d32xsqrt(n) -> d32xsqrtd64</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> But there is no
_Decimal32x type.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Changed already
to f32.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font><BR>