<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> <b>Attendees</b>:
Rajan, Jim, Fred, Mike, Damian, 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">
WG14 reflector message 18590 response - Added to "Other Issues"</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 (all done unless specified otherwise below):</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Jim: Update N2559 to add 'superseded' and update the bibliography as per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> New
action items:</b></span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Redo updates to N2546 with the changes in CFP 1859.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Give a short summary of differences between N2579 and N2601 (differences
between TS part 3 as an Annex updates 2 and 3).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Update the example in G.5.1 using fmax to use the newer functions
as a new proposal.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: Respond to the WG14 reflector message to say CFP wants equivalence
to strtod and hence we don't want to parse digit separators either.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Write a WG14 editorial informational paper as per CFP 1821.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Write a CFP paper for the pow(1,NaN) and the compound(NaN, 0) case
with respect to quantum exponent of the result.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: Look into 'numerically equivalent' vs 'numerically equal' usage
in the C standard and revisit CFP 1849.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred/Jim: Have a statement in the main body of the standard saying opposite
signed zeros compare equal.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Change 'negative' to say 'less than zero' in certain cases in C.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Send out something to say negative zero and NaN's with a negative
sign bit are not negative values in C.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Reword the signbit description in C.</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, January 13th, 2021, 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> C23
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><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">also as link on CFP wiki</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Previous C2X draft: </span><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2478.pdf"><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2478.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Part 1</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Part 2</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 4ab</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</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: Look into other places to update references to DEC_EVAL_METHOD as
per N2546. See CFP 1859.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Agree with the changes in CFP 1859. Will rewrite the paper.</span><br><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">
Rajan: JeanHyde is good with the functions list in the Annex rework
to a parameterized version, and is willing to do the rest of the standard
the same way too. Longer term for that, but he is good with it. Expectation
is a paper to get WG14 approval from CFP and him, once the standard LaTeX
build system is updated to how he wants it.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
For the part 3 as an annex, JeanHyde is good with our changes
and does not need us to present it to WG14.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
We still need to deal with the changes requested (Ex. All
the parameterization that doesn't apply to some of the functions listed).</span><br><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><a href=https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2600.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2600.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">- C23 proposal - Revised N2559 update for IEC 60559 2020</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: Get an N# and submit the new draft of TS Part 3 as an annex. </span><a href=https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2601.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2601.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">- C2X proposal - TS 18661-3 annex update 3</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Jim: Give a short summary of differences between N2579 and
N2601 if asked.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Rework CFP 1797 to address the comments in the message. See CFP 1843.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
</span><br><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. See CFP 1837 - 1848.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Will rewrite the paper.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Should we leave the functions out of the Annex?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Agreed.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Should we remove the DFP versions?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Those went into part 2. It was implemented by HP. I
believe Intel does as well.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: I think IBM implemented them.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
No consensus to remove them.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: There was a use of fmax in G.5.1 in an example.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: It should be replaced with one of the new minimum/maximum
functions.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Fred: Update the example in G.5.1 using fmax to use the newer
functions.</span><br><br><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.
See CFP 1845.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Found other cases as well. Jim said they are covered by a
blanket NaN statement.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: For powr needs to be removed. Leftover from editing.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
The copysign line needs to be removed/omitted.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: pow(1,nan) compound(nan,0) both give 1. Everywhere else NaN's
give NaN.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
754 never says what the preferred exponent of a NaN is, so
what is the preferred exponent for that 1?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Was there an Inf that should have been an infinity symbol?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: No, it was because I don't have an infinity symbol
so that was just text to let the editor know.</span><br><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><a href=https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2602.pdf><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">https://wiki.edg.com/pub/CFP/WebHome/n2602.pdf</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">- C23 proposal - edits for infinity and NaN macros</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: The prefix names (D{32,64,128}_) should have been DEC{32,64,128}_
which needs to change. This is handled in N2617.</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">
WG14 reflector message 18590 response</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Rajan: Respond to the WG14 reflector message to say CFP wants
equivalence to strtod and hence we don't want to parse digit separators
either.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fix for decimal SNAN prefixes</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Agreed.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Preferred quantum exponents</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1829] Re: Preferred quantum exponent Jim Thomas</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Looks to be editorial.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Fred: Write a WG14 editorial informational paper as per CFP
1821.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
The quantum exponent for NaN:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: It should give the same quantum exponent as the
1 argument in the pow case.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: We'd be getting ahead of 754 here if we said anything.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David: If the other argument doesn't affect the quantum exponent,
it should't affect the result either.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Fred: Write a CFP paper for the pow(1, NaN) and the
compound(NaN, 0) case with respect to quantum exponent of the result.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Mike: I will do something for 754 to list this as an errata.
</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Also issues with extended formats and sign bits
of NaN.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Signaling NaNs. See CFP 1833.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: Should we explicitly talk about quiet NaN instead of using
the blanket statement that NaNs are implicitly quiet unless stated otherwise.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
I think we trip up on this a number of times so I like it.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: I think if we do a risk/benefit of doing this it seems to
balance on the risk side to me (if we miss a case for example).</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: There are a number of references F.2.1 that refers to SNAN
in math.h that needs to be changed. I will send a email on this.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
For the hypot case:</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: I don't understand what "numerically equivalent"
means.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: Why not say numerically equal?</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: David H: Look into numerically equivalent vs numerically
equal usage in the C standard and revisit CFP 1849.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Even zero. See CFP 1826.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Agree.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Negative zero</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
[Cfp-interest 1839] Re: Negative zero Damian McGuckin o [Cfp-interest
1840] Re: Negative zero Damian McGuckin</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: SNaN's can have an interpretation in the sign bit.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: It is allowed for both NaN and SNaN, and up to the implementation.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: Exception handling could be user written code.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: It may be user written, but not portable.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: The old IEEE spec says copysign copies the sign bit, but the
current IEEE says it is unspecified for NaN's. I need to go back and see
where it changed.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Ian: I want C to match 754. This means the sign bit of the NaN be
uninterpreted. This is different from saying a NaN does not have any sign.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: 754 shows different levels of abstractions, and in those it
shows there is only one QNaN and one SNaN, but at the encoding level it
does show the sign. At the representation level in 754 it doesn't have
a sign.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: I don't see opposite signed zeros compare equal anywhere in
the main body of the standard. If it is not said explicitly, we should
say so in Annex F.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Rajan: A simple bitmask AND should be a way to implement the signbit
macro.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Jim: That is the intent of IEEE.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Fred/Jim: Have a statement in the main body of the standard
saying opposite signed zeros compare equal.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Fred: Still want to change negative to say less than zero
in certain cases in C.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
David H: Zero's are not positive or negative, but are positive signed
or negative signed. NaN's are not positive or negative but are sign bit'd
in interchange formats but may not be for extended formats.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
I will send it out via email.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Jim: I will send out something to say negative zero and NaN's
with a negative sign bit are not negative values in C.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
*AI*: Jim: Need to reword the signbit description in C.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Parameterization of interfaces</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Nothing new.</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
TS 18661 updates. See CFP 1856.</span><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
Fred: Does anyone have a copy of IEC 60559:2020? In the past IEC
posted something that was different and not correct.</span><BR>