<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>:
Rajan, Jim, Fred, Mike, David H., Ian, </span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> New
agenda items:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
None.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Carry
over action items:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Give a new version of the SNAN initialization paper (as per CFP1316).
- Done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Last
meeting action items:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Create a link to the 250 draft into the references section in the
C FP wiki. - Done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: Forward the IEEE article to WG14 once David H sends it out to us.
- Not done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David: OK to send the draft even though it is not final and has
been changed.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Draft a slide deck and a proposal based on CFP1331. - Partially done.
Slide deck to carry over. Proposal done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Draft a note to warn about CFP1315's rounding of negative constants
issue. - Done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> New
action items:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Draft a slide deck based on CFP1331.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Add wording to the CFP1331 proposal make it clear this is for particular
evaluation methods, and submit the document to W14.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Add a statement as to why there is a second name for log1p as a footnote
as a new proposal.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Submit CFP 1340 to WG14.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Reword CFP 1337 as per action item discussion in the 2019/07/17 meeting.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Send CFP 1349 to the WG14 reflector as the CFP position.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Write a paper to make the range error for small nonzero x consistent
for expm1, logp1, log10p1's other base functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Add in the normalized discussion from Fred (CFP 1341, CFP 1342) to
the agenda for next meeting.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Next
Meeting(s):</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Wednesday, August 21st, 2019, 11:00 EST, 8:00 PST, 4PM UTC</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Same teleconference number.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Please notify the group if this time slot does not work.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Discussion:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
754 revision:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Should be done. Likely to be published on Monday. Draft 263 seems
to be good.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Likely one more meeting to discuss the background document, repository
and maintenance, hand over to any future group for a future revision.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Mike will send the 263 pdf for posting on the CFP wiki.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Specifying identities for math functions was something I wanted
to ask the 754 group. Will bring it up there.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
C++ Liaison:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Nothing new.ok </span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
C2X integration:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Draft with TS 1, 2, and 4a: </span><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/all-20190708.pdf"><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/all-20190708.pdf</span></a><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 3 – as annex, given to Jens: </span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2405.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2405.pdf</span></a><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 4b - Looking as an updated TS.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 5a,b,c,d – Discuss later. Part 5d is a TS update.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Action
item details:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Give a new version of the SNAN initialization paper (as per CFP1316).
See Fred’s CFP 1340.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*Fred: Submit this paper to WG14</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Draft a slide deck and a proposal based on CFP1331.</span><br><a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_TS_18661-5abc-20190709.pdf"><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2x_proposal_-_TS_18661-5abc-20190709.pdf</span></a><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Mike: Where it says evaluation to _Decimal64 is it greater than
or equal to or only _Decimal64?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: It is about _Decimal{32,64} being _Decimal64 while larger
is to the larger ones like _Decimal128 -> _Decimal128.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Requires support for these evaluation methods. We could add
this.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Or just say required to have _Decimal32 evaluated as _Decimal64.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: But that doesn't say what _Decimal64 is evaluated to.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Do we need to make it clearer that we are referring to particular
evaluation methods?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred/Mike: Yes.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: Does the result have to be rounded correctly to _Decimal32?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim/Fred: No.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: This does not preclude other evaluation methods. They have
to have at least this one, but can have others.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Jim: Add wording to the CFP1331 proposal make it clear this
is for particular evaluation methods and submit to WG14.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Draft a note to warn about CFP1315's rounding of negative constants
issue. See Jim’s CFP 1337.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
There is one correction in the last two sentences to have precision
to be precision and range.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: There could be other rounding modes so we should not list
them as the only ways. Perhaps say "rounding modes such as ..."
for each of the same result and different result cases. Also the part of
exact results should be a separate note or a separate paragraph.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: We should also not assume correct rounding.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Other issues</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred’s WG 14 papers (WG14 email thread “N2380: printf of NaN()”) - See
Jim’s CFP 1349</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*Jim: Send CFP 1349 to the WG14 reflector as the CFP position.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Issues raised by Jens</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Approach is define prefixes and reserve names under those prefixes.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim/Ian: The different styles with existing C18 names and
these new ones with similar functionality is not good.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
WANT macros are not sufficient since the names could already
be in the library independently of the user source WANT macro definition.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: How much is this a real problem? Is it not solved
by the compiler and linker people?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Is there a namespace issue with the operators and types
for your library Mike?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Mike: Not that I've come across</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Do language providers have application test suites that
would fail if these identifiers were added to math.h?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: It is hard to add 1700 identifiers.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: Ideally you'd want some major customers involved
as well.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Should we have a clear statement of the pros and cons of
the WANT macros?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: For GCC, I can specify a flag that works on the compiler
and linker and automatically links in all the libraries for me.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Was there consideration of allowing includes with finer
granularity.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: Yes, but no desire for it in WG14 when we discussed
it in London.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Naming of correctly rounded math functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
No real issue with using cr_, we only did it cr to match
existing C standard text.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Prefer the _.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
We can support this if Jens proposes it.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Obsolescing log1p - See Jim’s CFP 1348</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: I got an email complaining about this as it would break
their application and they don't have source code that can be recompiled.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: It would be good to add a statement as to why there
is a second name as a footnote.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Specifying more special cases for math functions, e.g., periodicity
for half-revolution trig functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Perhaps as recommended practice.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Issues with +/-0, NaNs, etc. and other identities.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: I would like having the identities being added and
requiring sin(30 degrees) being exactly a half.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: How would we come up with a list?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: We could ask Robert Enenkel at IBM.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: I don't think we want to copy the entire IEEE standard
into the C standard. C still caters to non-IEEE implementations.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: All IEEE says is to correctly round, and if you
can't do that, this doesn't help.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Keep on the agenda since this right now is QoI.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Putting the half-revolution trig functions into their own subclause.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
No issue with this.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Range error may occur if nonzero x is too small for expm1.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: We should address this.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: It is covered under the general statement about allowing
other range errors, but we can make it clearer or consistent with the other
exp*10* functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Result: Look into doing something for this to make it more
consistent.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: exp10m1 has finite while exp2m1 doesn't. It is only
a problem for a positive large number, not just any large number.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: Related to DR40?</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Range error may occur if nonzero x is too small for logp1 and log10p1.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Result: Look into doing something for this to make it more
consistent.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*Fred: Write a paper to make the range error for small nonzero
x consistent for expm1, logp1, log10p1's other base functions.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Action items from WG14 London meeting:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
C FP: Give 18661 part 4a (not reduction functions) for inclusion
into C2X (</span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2401.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2401.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">)</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Done.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
C FP: Put N2309 into TS 18661-4 and C2X (</span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2401.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2401.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">)</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Done.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
TS DR13: Move to C2X (C FP action item)</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
TS DR16: Move to C2X (C FP action item).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
TS DR20-25: Move to C2X (C FP action item).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Done.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
CFP compendium - See Jim’s CFP 1332</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Plan looks good.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Other
items:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
CFP 1341: FP_NORMAL.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Besides normalized finite numbers, FP_NORMAL may have other kinds
such as unnormals.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: DFP has a lot of finite numbers that are not normalized.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: There is a problem with the term normalized. I may have been
better saying normal. Unnormals may resolve to sub-normals if it was attempted
to be normalized. There can be unnormalized representations of normal numbers.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: Maybe the footnote needs to say unnormal numbers can be
FP_NORMAL or FP_SUBNORMAL depending on their value.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Will go back to look at the test around normal numbers and
come back here.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Add in the normalized discussion from Fred to the agenda for next
meeting.</span><br><BR>