<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>Summary</b>: All
papers passed. There were some issues with some papers that need follow
up however, detailed below with a *.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2546: Addition
of DEC_EVAL_METHOD</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Joseph:
Also can look at other places with similar issues.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Put N2546 into C23?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
20/0/1. Consensus.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2547: Missing
const in decimal payload functions</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Goes into
C23.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2548: intmax_t
and math functions</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> *Joseph:
Part 3 needs these changes as well.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Put N2548 into C23?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
17/0/6. Consensus.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2564: Range errors
and math functions</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Accepted
as is.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2552: Editorial
cleanup</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Accepted
as is.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2558: Annex B
with prototype forms</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Alex: Love
it. Like generic. Want this in more places.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Jens: Agree
with liking this, but concern is that Annex B is automatically extracted
from the standard. This change makes it harder for auto-generation. If
you want this, the change should be made to the standard itself, not just
annex B.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> *Joseph:
Hasn't been updated for the new functions like the max/min, and other typo's
like remquo, nexttoward lists all the types but doesn't include all the
types. A number of other mistakes like that.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Having annotations for the subsets is needed.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Aaron Ballman:
Using N and M and MS is awkward. Perhaps use something different.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
We (CFP) discussed this, and wanted consistency with Part 3, but happy
to change if JeanHyde says typeface here doesn't work. - It does work for
JeanHyde.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> *Fred:
nexttoward does take decimal too. We (CFP) also noticed missing functions
in the existing Annex B.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> *David
S: This rewrite seems to apply to things like Atomics and other things
too. When I write my paper, I'll send it to CFP for review.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Does the committee want something along the lines of N2558 in Annex B?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
11/4/8. Direction to continue along these lines.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Does the committee want something along the lines of N2558 in the main
body of the standard (that is reworking the main body to have this type
parameterization)?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
11/2/8. Clear direction.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> From chat:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Joseph: suggest not using StdType for fadd, dadd etc. (given fadd is just
two functions, dadd just one). It makes sense for fMadd etc, however.
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
JeanHyde (private): I love this change and would like to make it happen,
for what it's worth. It might take some effort but I'll be happy to do
my best to try it out in places and demo what it looks like over the next
few months!</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Should CFP also do the complex functions similar to the real functions
for Annex B?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
JeanHyde: I think we should to the whole standard, honestly. :D
(But,
we can start with Math.h and the FP functions first, see how that looks
and what works best, and then go from there.)
</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2559: Update
to IEC 60559 2020</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> *Joseph:
Bibliography needs to be updated. Other normative references like fmax
need to be updated. Want to keep the references to the older versions (like
Annex F nextafter in F.3#8) (and add them to the bibliography). Add the
word superseded in the reference to the IEEE 2011 draft.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Do we want N2559 into C23?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
15/0/5. Consensus.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2560: FP hex
formatting precision</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Do we want N2560 into C23 as is (Footnote form)?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
10/1/9. Consensus.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2561: TS 18661-3
annex update</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> See N2579
for latest version.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> *Joseph:
Further updates were in the reflector like things for SNAN, intmax_t, etc.
need to be part of the vote.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
What is the intention of the float.h macros in all 3 sets. Not mentioned
in this annex? Ex. hassubnorm, min/max normalized macros. Should they be
added in? New min/max functions should be part of this annex.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Put N2561 into C23 knowing future changes will be needed?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
10/3/7. Consensus.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> From JeanHyde
(private): (For what it's worth, I would have automatically applied such
changes for consistency anyways, just seeing it as an editorial change
to make it consistent by working with Jim Thomas to get to that point.
And without requiring CFP to submit new papers to fix things that they
already sent papers to fix.)
</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">N2570: Feature/want
macros for Annex F functions</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Does the committee want to address the issue given in N2570?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
12/0/6. Consensus.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Does the committee want to keep the WANT macro as described in N2570?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
4/6/8. Not clear direction.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Does the committee want two separate frames as described in N2570?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
4/2/12. No clear direction.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Does the committee want a single frame as described in N2570 example 2?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
6/0/11. Clearer direction.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> Straw poll:
Does the committee want to adopt a single frame as described in N2570 example
2 into C23?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
6/0/12. Clearer direction, but large abstentions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Reason for abstentions: Lack of domain knowledge, underwhelmed.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards,<br><br><b>Rajan Bhakta</b><br>z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br>ISO C Standards Representative (Canada, USA), PL22.11 Chair<br>C/C++ Compiler Development</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">rbhakta@us.ibm.com</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">IBM</span><br><BR>