<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> <b>Attendees:</b>Rajan, Jim, Mike, David H., </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">
Jim: Draft a slide deck and a proposal based on CFP1331. - 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: Reword CFP1337 to avoid stating standard types with non-power-of-2
bases with hexadecimal still being exact. Submit as an N document. - Done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Respond with needing both NAN and NAN( forms, and what the payload
flexibility should be.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Rewrite the proposed CFP1360 paper using the CFP recommendations.
- Keep open, progress has been made.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Discuss the namespace issue next meeting. - Done.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: For the FLT_EVAL_METHOD example, add _Float16 in since it can show
that evaluation to type is not always true. - 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">
CFP: Put the tgmath redefinition as a proposal to the standard once we
have a base document with TS Part 3 in it. </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Respond to Fred's question in CFP1377 about where the SNANF information
is stated.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
CFP: Look at naming issue and propose responses to the questions in the
paper.</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, October 16th, 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">
Request to move to ISO (all voted for that by the revision group),
but haven't heard back from yet.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
When should we (CFP) propose our support for 754-2019 to WG14?</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.</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><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 3</span><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</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
No new draft yet, but may not have part 3 and 4 before WG14 meeting.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Action
item details:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Draft a slide deck based on CFP1331 (</span><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><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,
</span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2421.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2421.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">)</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Looks good.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Reword CFP1337 to avoid stating standard types with non-power-of-2
bases with hexadecimal still being exact. Submit as an N document (</span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2416.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2416.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Looks good.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Respond with needing both NAN and NAN( forms, and what the payload
flexibility should be. See (SC22WG14.17010) [Cfp-interest 1370]</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Looks good.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Rewrite the proposed CFP1360 paper using the CFP recommendations.
See thread starting with [Cfp-interest 1388] Math functions & range
errors</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Defer until Fred is available.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Discuss the namespace issue next meeting (see CFP 1405, 1406).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
These made it though the process as part of the TS's.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Made it through the process again for inclusion into C2X.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Arguments for namespace and style of names.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Projected problems, none yet found in the field despite implementation
(GNU for current TSs, HPUX, Sun, Intel, IBM for prior TR specification
for example).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Compiler changes are more difficult and more unlikely to happen
than library changes so keeping function pointers and tgmath is an issue.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
May be assuming weak symbols and separate libraries for math, dealing
with shared objects and other things like that.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
1.2 q2) It is not the editor that needs to do this via integration.
It is a specification. Not sure how to do this without magic.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Can have a new math header, with the math_ prefix, everything else
stays the same.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Keep this on the agenda.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: For the FLT_EVAL_METHOD example, add _Float16 in since it can show
that evaluation to type is not always true (see CFP 1386).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: The 'else' separating double and long double from float should
be reworded. Also, "regarding" should be changed to be something
else.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: We can reword the "else", but for "regarding"
we use that in the place we define integer and _Decimal in the TS's.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Agree to make the change.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: CFP: Put the tgmath redefinition as a proposal to the standard
once we have a base document with TS Part 3 in it.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Other
issues:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Follow-up on what does “normalized” mean in C? See CFP 1399.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Things that are not normal or subnormal (like double-double)
does need other classification macros for values outside the C model. We
can leave it for the implementations or define something like FP_NONMODEL.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David: Presumably more recent implementations figured out what to
do. Old ones may want to do something, but Fred would probably have more
of an interest in this (for test purposes). You could have non-model and
double-double where the implementation would use one and testing could
use the other.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: It is stated that they are disjoint.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Not urgent. Keep as a carry over action item.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Proposal for why there is a second name for log1p (</span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2424.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2424.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Agree.</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. Perhaps as recommended practice.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Postpone.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
SNANF (See CFP 1366, 1372). Can we close this?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Jim: Respond to Fred's question in CFP1377 about where the
SNANF information is stated.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> For
WG14 meeting</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
21-25 October, 2019 – Ithaca, New York, US [N 2327]</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Pre-Ithaca – 23 September 2019</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2384 2019/05/13 Thomas, C2X proposal - F.8 update</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2400 2019/06/09 Thomas, C2X proposal - why no wide string strfrom functions</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2406 2019/07/28 Tydeman, SNAN: initialization and unary +</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2407 2019/07/28 Thomas, Proposal for C2X - TS 18661-5abc supplementary
attributes</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2416 2019/09/08 Thomas, Proposal for C2X - floating-point negation and
conversion </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2421 2019/09/12 Thomas, TS 18661-5abc for C2X - slides </span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2424.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2424.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">- C2X proposal - footnote about why logp1</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> Activities</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Review activities in progress</span><br><BR>