<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>:
Rajan, Jim, Fred, Mike, Ian, 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">
Fred: Rewrite the proposed CFP1360 paper using the CFP recommendations.
- 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">
CFP: Put the tgmath redefinition as a proposal to the standard once we
have a base document with TS Part 3 in it. - Carry over (no base document
with part 3 yet)</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. - Done.</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. - Done.</span><br><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: Follow up on CFP1419 via email.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Create a WG14 paper for the next Spring 2020 WG14 meeting along the
lines of CFP1411.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><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, November 20th, 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">
Looking for new 754 chair.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
In maintenance mode right now. Nothing to do until someone wants
to be chair.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: A lot of ideas for new features for the next 754 revision.
Can have a group per idea to push the individual ideas.</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><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2433.pdf"><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2433.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">):</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><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Haven't yet checked to make sure all comments for part 4a integration
were addressed, but don't see problems there.</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">
Fred: Rewrite the proposed CFP1360 paper using the CFP recommendations.
See thread starting with [Cfp-interest 1388] Math functions & range
errors (see CFP 1419).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Too late for WG14 meeting.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Still an ambiguity with "small".</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Still has the question of zero possible being too close to
zero.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: exp is an example, and I can add in "non-zero"
x being too close to zero.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Are there cases that don't say magnitude being too small?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: More of a general thing of saying too small.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: This mirrors the too large.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Still some issues with the "may occur for finite x"
changes.</span><br><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">
Postpone until we have a base document.</span><br><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 (see CFP 1411).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: Should we redefine constant expression instead?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: That would have impacts across C so I wouldn't want
to do it.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Mike: It would be a bigger change than just fixing NaNs.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Mike: Can have a new kind of constant expression as well if we want
instead of this.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Jim: Create a WG14 paper for the next Spring 2020 WG14 meeting
along the lines of CFP1411.</span><br><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><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2426.pdf"><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2426.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,
</span><a href=http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/responses_to_naming_questions.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/responses_to_naming_questions.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">,
Joseph Myers email SC22WG14.17170).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
WG1417170: Agree with points 1, 2, 3 (diagnostic outside scope of
CFP but we agree with it), 5. 4 is outside our scope.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 1: Ian, Rajan like removing the _Float32/64 since it's
easier for users and implementers.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Lose the portability aspect of _Float32x. _Float128
is still useful too for portability.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Suggest we say "No" but if there is a request for
change, we can propose what is in the responses_to_naming_questions.pdf
paper to remove redundant types and only leave true extensions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 2: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 3: "No". Agree with Jim's paper and Joseph's
reflector response.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 4: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 5: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 6: "Neutral". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 7: "Neutral". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 8: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 9: "No". Agree with Jim's paper and Joseph's
reflector response.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 10: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 11: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 12: "No". Agree with Jim's paper. Note "cr"
is not reserved as a prefix nor is crsqrt an ambiguity.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David: No information on implementers right now on this.
Usually in private libraries rather than language extensions. Implementations
(Sun, Oracle) are common for these functions, but naming may not be. Lots
of papers with it too.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Having reserved names will help make them be externalized.
Also 754 requires correctly rounded functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David: Having a simple prefix will help externalize those
functions and make them portable. This allows programmers to choose between
performance/accuracy tradeoffs in an accurate way.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 13: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 14: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 15: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 16: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*Question 17: "No". Though if it is a real demonstrated
conflict, we are OK with it, and are OK with the changes here or other
ones.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Can add in an underbar for ones that may be an issue
(f_add) for example.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: Joseph at least has implemented this so suggest "No."</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 18: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 19: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 20: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*Question 21: "No". Already implemented as is (Joseph
for example).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 22: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 23: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 24: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Question 25: "No". Agree with Jim's paper.</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">
Joseph Myers (SC22WG14.17150) N2361 inconsistency with implementation techniques</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Defer.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Followup on what does “normalized” mean in C? See CFP 1399</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Defer.</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">
Defer.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
For WG14 meeting 21-25 October, 2019 – Ithaca, New York, US [N 2327]</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2384 Thomas, C2X proposal - F.8 update</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2400 Thomas, C2X proposal - why no wide string strfrom functions</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2406 Tydeman, SNAN: initialization and unary +</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2407 Thomas, Proposal for C2X - TS 18661-5abc supplementary attributes</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2416 Thomas, Proposal for C2X - floating-point negation and conversion</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2421 Thomas, TS 18661-5abc for C2X - slides</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2424 Thomas, Proposal for C2X proposal – Why logp1?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
No new comments. </span><BR>