<html><body><p><font size="2"> </font><b><font size="2">Attendees</font></b><font size="2">: Rajan, Jim, Fred, Ian, Mike, David O., Damian, David H.</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> New agenda items:</font></b><br><font size="2"> None</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> Carry over action items:</font></b><br><font size="2"> None.</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> Last meeting action items (all done unless specified otherwise below):</font></b><br><font size="2"> Fred: Redo updates to N2546 with the changes in CFP 1859.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Give a short summary of differences between N2579 and N2601 (differences between TS part 3 as an Annex updates 2 and 3).</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Update the example in G.5.1 using fmax to use the newer functions as a new proposal.</font><br><font size="2"> 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.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Write a WG14 editorial informational paper as per CFP 1821.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Write a CFP paper for the pow(1,NaN) and the compound(NaN, 0) case with respect to quantum exponent of the result.</font><br><font size="2"> David H: Look into numerically equivalent vs numerically equal usage in the C standard and revisit CFP 1849. - *Not done</font><br><font size="2"> Fred/Jim: Have a statement in the main body of the standard saying opposite signed zeros compare equal.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Still want to change negative to say less than zero in certain cases in C.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: I will send out something to say negative zero and NaN's with a negative sign bit are not negative values in C.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Need to reword the signbit description in C.</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> New action items:</font></b><br><font size="2"> Jim/Fred: Go through all the CFP proposals submitted to ensure they were put in the C standard draft (N2596) correctly.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Submit CFP 1869 to WG14 with the typo fix of adding a space to the second last change.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Resend the document relating to updating the example in G.5.1 using max to use the newer functions as a new proposal.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Submit CFP 1870 to WG14.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Send out the changed text (CFP 1891) to 754.</font><br><font size="2"> Rajan: Test the change in CFP 1891 with IBM's implementation.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Submit the change proposed in CFP 1891 to WG14.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim/Fred: Make CFP 1866 into a draft WG14 proposal with the change "Positive zeros compare equal to negative zeros."</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Change "negative signed value" to "a value with a negative sign" in CFP 1886 and submit it to WG14.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Make CFP 1881 into a WG14 proposal removing "with a negative sign bit".</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Look at other uses of the phrase "sign bit" in the C standard.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Submit CFP 1879 to WG14 changing "reports" to "determines" in the footnote.</font><br><font size="2"> Rajan: Look into whether "should" can be used in an ISO standard. (Yes, allowed: See </font><a href="https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html"><font size="2">https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html</font></a><font size="2">)</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Submit CFP 1883 as a WG14 proposal.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Get permission from WG14 to revise TS 18661-5 along the lines of what is proposed for TS 18661-4 in CFP 1856.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Follow up with the WG14 editor about the changes in CFP 1874.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Combine CFP 1880 and CFP 1885, and update CFP 1885 to address the and/or ambiguity in the first suggested change and put it in the form of a proposal.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Get permission from WG14 to revise TS 18661-5 along the lines of what is proposed for TS 18661-4 in CFP 1856.</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> Next Meeting(s):</font></b><br><font size="2"> Wednesday, February 17th, 2021, 4PM UTC</font><br><font size="2"> ISO Zoom teleconference</font><br><font size="2"> Please notify the group if this time slot does not work.</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><b><font size="2"> WG14 meeting:</font></b><br><font size="2"> Rajan: Went over the WG14 meeting results for our papers. See CFP1868.</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> C++ liaison:</font></b><br><font size="2"> David O.: Nothing about IEEE, but there is a C/C++ compatibility study group starting up (Aaron Ballman).</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> C23 integration</font></b><br><font size="2"> Latest C2X draft: </font><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2"><font size="2">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2</font></a><font size="2">{596,573,478}.pdf also as link on CFP wiki</font><br><font size="2"> Part 2</font><br><font size="2"> Part 3</font><br><font size="2"> Part 4ab</font><br><font size="2"> Part 5abcd</font><br><font size="2"> IEC 60559:2020 support</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> Action item details</font></b><br><font size="2"> Fred: Redo updates to N2546 with the changes in CFP 1859.</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1869: DEC_EVAL_METHOD</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Missing space in second last change (before "and").</font><br><font size="2"> Good to submit to WG14.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Jim: Give a short summary of differences between N2579 and N2601 (differences between TS part 3 as an Annex updates 2 and 3).</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1867: AI to list latest changes in TS part 3 as annex</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> No issues.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Fred: Update the example in G.5.1 using fmax to use the newer functions as a new proposal.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Fred to resend the document relating to updating the example in G.5.1 using max to use the newer functions as a new proposal.</font><br><br><font size="2"> 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.</font><br><font size="2"> See WG14 reflector message 18602.</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> No issues.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Fred: Write a WG14 editorial informational paper as per CFP 1821.</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1870: +(x)</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> No issues (unary + is the copy operation).</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Fred: Submit CFP 1870 to WG14.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Fred: Write a CFP paper for the pow(1,NaN) and the compound(NaN, 0) case with respect to quantum exponent of the result.</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1872, 1890, 1891: Quantum exponent of NaN</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> Jim: We generally don't like getting ahead of IEEE, but this is a case where it seems OK.</font><br><font size="2"> Mike: Yes, this is a 754 errata that will be updated.</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: Sent to 754's list but no response.</font><br><font size="2"> Mike: Took the no response as assent.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Fred: Send out the changed text (CFP 1891) to 754.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Rajan: Test this change (CFP 1891) with IBM's implementation.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Fred: Submit the change proposed in CFP 1891 to WG14.</font><br><br><font size="2"> David H: Look into 'numerically equivalent' vs 'numerically equal' usage in the C standard and revisit CFP 1849.</font><br><font size="2"> Not done.</font><br><font size="2"> *Carry over*</font><br><br><font size="2"> Fred/Jim: Have a statement in the main body of the standard saying opposite signed zeros compare equal.</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1866: AI for unsigned zeros to compare equal</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> Mike: Should say "Positive zeros compare equal to negative zeros.".</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Used "compare equal" since that is what was used elsewhere.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Jim/Fred: Make CFP 1866 into a draft WG14 proposal with the change "Positive zeros compare equal to negative zeros."</font><br><br><font size="2"> Fred: Change 'negative' to say 'less than zero' in certain cases in C.</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1871, 1886, 1887: Negative</font><br><br><font size="2"> Fred: In the POSIX email list, they said -0 is a negative number. We don't mean that so this change. It is fine for most of the math functions, but printf has an issue.</font><br><font size="2"> David said you could say "a value with a negative sign" vs the "negative signed value".</font><br><font size="2"> Fred: My understanding is at that level of the hierarchy NaN's don't have a sign.</font><br><font size="2"> Mike: At the representation level they can have a sign bit, but that's a different level.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Fred: Change "negative signed value" to "a value with a negative sign" in CFP 1886 and submit it to WG14.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Jim: Send out something to say negative zero and NaN's with a negative sign bit are not negative values in C.</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1881: say negative zero and NaN's with a negative sign bit are not negative values</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> Mike: You could remove the second sentence there. As David said, the fact that NaNs can have negative sign bits depends on the encoding.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: I don't want to use the words "negative NaN".</font><br><font size="2"> Mike: Translating a NaN to a string can have a negative sign in front, even though it doesn't have to have a sign bit. Sign bit only applies when talking about an encoding.</font><br><font size="2"> Perhaps say "Negative zeros and NaNs are never negative values."</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: So remove "with a negative sign bit" from CFP 1881.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Jim: Make CFP 1881 into a WG14 proposal removing "with a negative sign bit".</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Jim: Look at other uses of the phrase "sign bit" in the C standard.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Jim: Reword the signbit description in C.</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1879: AI to reword signbit description</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> Mike: Same issue for a negative zero not being a negative value. We should add in "or it is a -0" into the returns section.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: None of the cases here describe -0. In the floating point model, all finite values have a sign. This includes -0.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: For the footnote, should it be changed so reports->determines?</font><br><font size="2"> Seems good.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: F.3 seems an awkward place to place the specification of sigbit. Maybe better to put it in F.10?</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Jim: Submit CFP 1879 to WG14 changing "reports" to "determines" in the footnote.</font><br><br><b><font size="2"> Other issues</font></b><br><font size="2"> fabs and copysign cleanup</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1883: fabs and copysign cleanup</font><br><br><font size="2"> Mike: For fabs, why not just say floating point values instead of floating point numbers?</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Most descriptions for the functions talk about 'x'.</font><br><font size="2"> Mike: The special thing about fabs vs abs is the 'f' meaning floating point values.</font><br><font size="2"> Mike: Editorial: The change for F.10.8#1 copysign may have an extra space before the y in the "copysign(x, y)".</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Rajan: Look into whether "should" can be used in an ISO standard. (Yes, allowed: See </font><a href="https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html"><font size="2">https://www.iso.org/foreword-supplementary-information.html</font></a><font size="2">)</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Jim: Submit CFP 1883 as a WG14 proposal.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Signaling NaNs</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1874, 1875, 1876: SNAN issues</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Fred: Follow up with the WG14 editor about the changes in CFP 1874.</font><br><br><font size="2"> 5.2.4.2.2 clarification</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1880, 1882, 1884, 1885: 5.2.4.2.2 clarification</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> CFP 1880 seems like an improvement.</font><br><font size="2"> Rajan: Suggested change 1 has a problem with the and/or binding leaving it ambiguous.</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: Can be changed with a colon and semicolons? Seems heavyweight.</font><br><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Jim: Combine CFP 1880 and CFP 1885, and update CFP 1885 to address the and/or ambiguity in the first suggested change and put it in the form of a proposal.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Range errors</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1841-1843, 1873: C math errors</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> Ian: For Issue 5, is that for subnormals?</font><br><font size="2"> Jim: It is for ease of use. We thought it may be too difficult to know if an operation underflowed or not, so we allowed them to signal underflow.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Jim: At least three separable proposals here: 3,7,4 and 1,8, and the remainder. I'll try to break it down for next time.</font><br><br><font size="2"> Parameterization of interfaces TS 18661 revisions</font><br><font size="2"> See Cfp-interest 1856: TS 18661-4 revision</font><br><font size="2"> </font><br><font size="2"> Jim: For part 5, it is hard to read now with the integration of parts 1-3 and parts of 4 into the C standard. It seems to be better as an optional extension rather than a stand alone document. Something like an annex.</font><br><font size="2"> David H: We need to get buy in to the big idea before we can get it for the details.</font><br><font size="2"> We should go ahead and try to get permission for that type of update.</font><br><font size="2"> *AI*: Jim: Get permission from WG14 to revise TS 18661-5 along the lines of what is proposed for TS 18661-4 in CFP 1856.</font><br><BR>
</body></html>