<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>:
Rajan, Jim, Fred, Mike, David H, Ian, David O., Damian</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">
None.</span><br><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">
Fred: Get a paper number and submit CFP 1760 to WG14.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Submit CFP 1758 with the addition of a reference to the property referenced
in Problem 2.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Rework CFP 1759 to better word and position the footnote.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Remove default argument promotion from slide deck and proposal for
Part 3 as an Annex. Submit them as WG14 updated papers.</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">
Fred: Look into other places to update references to DEC_EVAL_METHOD as
per N2546.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: Discuss with JeanHyde on what to do for N2558 (and mention our plans
for N2559).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Update N2559 to add 'superseded' and update the bibliography as per
Josephs comments.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Get an N# and submit the new draft of TS Part 3 as an annex.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Rework CFP 1797 to address the comments in the message.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Write a paper to remove the fminfN/fmaxfN/fmindN/... functions from
part 3 as an annex.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Create a paper for the missing cases for compound{n} as per CFP 1793.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Submit the need for editorial changes along the lines of CFP 1794
to JeanHyde.</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, November 25th, 2020, 4PM UTC</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
ISO Zoom teleconference</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Please notify the group if this time slot does not work.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> C++
liaison:</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> WG14
October meeting (CFP 1795):</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2546: May need updates to a footnote for atomic compound assignment.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Fred: Look into other places to update references to DEC_EVAL_METHOD
as per N2546.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2548: Jim has an update with this change along with others.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2558:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Rajan: Discuss with JeanHyde on what to do for this (and mention
our plans for N2559).</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2559:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Jim: Update N2559 to add 'superseded' and update the bibliography
as per Josephs comments.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Should we get a N# document for these?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
We can submit this as editorial, and not need agenda time.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2561: A new draft with the annex changes was submitted.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Jim: Get an N# and submit the new draft.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2570: Jim: There is one other use of the radix specific WANT macros, so
we may need to make another change.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
We should monitor the change to ensure it is in correctly and nothing
is missed like the additional use of the macro.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> C2X
Integration:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Latest C2X draft: </span><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2573.pdf"><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2573.pdf</span></a><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 1 - In, or will be in soon.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 2 - In, or will be in soon.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 3 - In, or will be in soon.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 4a - In, or will be in soon.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 4b</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 5abcd</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
IEC 60559:2020 support - In, or will be in soon.</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: Get a paper number and submit CFP 1760 to WG14.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2580 DFP triples.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Mike: Want to ensure the minus signs are minus and not hypens.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Submit CFP 1758 with the addition of a reference to the property referenced
in Problem 2.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1788] AI about sufficient formatting precision</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Added a reference at Problem 2.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Rework CFP 1759 to better word and position the footnote.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1778] Exact subnormal results</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
See CFP 1797 with Jim's suggestions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Agree with the first two of Jim's changes. Annex F
does list a lot of exact cases. 754 allows flush to zero so don't have
to have subnormals. WG14 has not adopted it yet though.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Those Annex F lists are for special values. Nothing
for every case.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: I don't think so. Almost every function has something
about this.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: The power function has a bazillion exact cases but they
are not all listed.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Fred: Rework the CFP 1797 to address the comments.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Remove default argument promotion from slide deck and proposal for
Part 3 as an Annex. Submit them as WG14 updated papers.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2579 2020/10/04 Thomas, C2X proposal - TS 18661-3 annex update
2</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
N2578 2020/10/04 Thomas, TS 18661-3 annex update - slide deck</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> WG14
meeting followup</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
TS3 annex</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1791] TS3 annex update - post WG14 meeting</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Moved SNAN macros from math.h into float.h.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Removed the intmax_t's.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
The new min/max functions were added.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Removed maxmag, minimal functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Given we're obsolescing fmin/fmax, should we be added those
to this annex?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: They are not obsolesced, but the question is still valid.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: We should remove them if it is easy to do since IEEE
considers them fundamentally flawed.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Fred: Write a paper to remove the fminfN/fmaxfN/fmindN/...
functions from part 3 as an annex.</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">
Missing cases for compoundn</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1792] compoundn(+inf,n)</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1793] Re: compoundn(+inf,n)</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Not sure how we missed them. They are in 754.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Fred: Create a paper for the missing cases for compound{n}
as per CFP 1793.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Infinity and NaN macros cleanup</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1794] NaN and infinity macros cleanup Jim Thomas</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Is this a new paper or editorial?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: I hope it is editorial. Certainly was the intent.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI: Jim: Submit the need for editorial changes along the lines
of CFP 1794 to JeanHyde.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Gradual overflow</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1780] Gradual overflow Fred J. Tydeman</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1781] Re: Gradual overflow David Hough CFP</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: I see only double-double as a case where this would matter.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: With these changes, double-double implementations would end
up breaking if they did conform before these changes.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
TS 18661 updates</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
For part 4b and part 5.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
We need to submit a WG14 paper asking to revise the TS's (before
February). In one of the spring meetings, WG14 would decide whether to
do it or not. By August, SC22 would agree to update the TS's. By August
2023, we'd have to have the final ballot for the updated TS. August 2024
would be the deadline for final publication.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Do we really need to revise them?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Part 4 would allow us to bring in the augmented arithmetic
functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
For part 5, it may be a fair question, though it refers to
an obsolete version to the standard. It could be written more like a standard.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Would the new additions be a new edition and have the same
number? Ex. 18661-4 2nd edition?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Do we want to re-propose TS part 5 to WG14 as part of C? I
think having standard pragmas for floating point semantics would be useful
and move the industry forward.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: I'll bring another look at it up in the agenda for next CFP
meeting.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: I got information on a new template for the TS's.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Is it valuable to have the background section there and repeated
as before?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Library functions returning _Bool</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1786] totalorder Fred J. Tydeman</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1787] Re: totalorder Jim Thomas Others?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Should we have WG14 tell us to do that? I'd rather have WG14
tell us they want all new functions to follow that rather than us doing
changes to some functions.</span><br><BR>