<html><body><p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Hi,</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Good news: All of our papers scheduled for this week, as well as some that were not scheduled were accepted by WG14!</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Note that there were other issues that touch on us including the Austin Group's question Fred posted, so this is just a paper summary.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Details are below.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">5.8 Thomas, C2X proposal - signbit cleanup [N 2650]</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Does WG14 want to adopt N2650 into C23?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 18/0/2. Consensus to adopt into C23.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">5.9 Thomas, C2X proposal - fabs and copysign cleanup [N 2651] - </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>We only asked for the last two changes to go it as the first couple need work</b></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Myers: For the Annex F changes that are not being proposed right now, for implementation defined assignment convert format may lose information about the sign representation. This applies to SNaNs for hypot and other functions.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Svoboda: For functions that differ on types of input we have different functions. Should we say something about it still being a floating point types.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: I don't see a need for a change. If WG14 wants one, let us know.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Tommy: Does this open it up to strings?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: No.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Does WG14 want the change to 7.12.7.3 into C23?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 20/0/3. Consensus to put into C23.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Does WG14 want the change to 7.12.11.1 into C23?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 17/0/6. Consensus to put into C23.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">5.10 Thomas, TS 18661-5 revision [N 2652]</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> If plenary is not needed, we want approval to reissue the TS.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Myers: What happens with part 4b?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: We will have new proposals if we don't already.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Does WG14 want to create a new revision of 18661-5 based on C23?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 19/0/2. Consensus to revise part 5.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Action Item: Keaton: Get a new revision started for CFP part 5 via asking for permission from SC22.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">5.11 Thomas, C23 proposal - zeros compare equal [N 2670]</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Svoboda: The committee said 2's complement for integers. This should only apply to floating point.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Yes, by elimination it does apply only to FP.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Seacord: Any way to tell if you have a negative zero?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Some library functions (Ex. memcmp), bit compare, unions.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Ballman: Maybe nice to say explicitly that the 6.5.8 change only applies to floating point.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Other types may exist. Ex. Fixed point.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Does WG14 accept N2670 into C23?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 19/1/3. Consensus to put into C23.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">7.1 Thomas, C23 proposal - negative values [N 2671]</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Svoboda: -Inf is negative. What about complex numbers?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: Complex is something to consider, but I believe it works. i.e. Not allowed to do < 0, but parts can be compared.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Seacord: Like the first paragraph better.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Myers: Have you looked at the rest of the standard. Ex. printf + flag. This may need to change for wide as well.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Fred: Yes, I have a paper in the queue for handling that. N2643.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Ballman: Can this break implementations? Ex. fsqrt?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Chat (Myers/Bachmann): It is handled in the spec for IEEE.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Svoboda: Shouldn't we vote on this and N2643 at the same time?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Keaton: We voted N2643 in already last meeting.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Seacord: Is the opposite true? i.e. Not negative means -0 is positive?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Rajan: No. NaN and Zero are not positive or negative.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> </font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Put N2671 into C23?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 16/0/2. Consensus to put into C23.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">7.2 Thomas, C23 proposal - 5.2.4.2.2 cleanup [N 2672]</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Straw poll: Put N2672 into C23?</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> 21/0/1. Consensus to put into C23.</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Regards,<br><br></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><b>Rajan Bhakta</b></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br>ISO C Standards Representative (Canada, USA), PL22.11 Chair<br>C/C++ Compiler Development</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">rbhakta@us.ibm.com</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">IBM</font><BR>
<BR>
</body></html>