<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Rajan and Fred, thanks for representing CFP, and the good progress.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rajan, thanks for the detailed report.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A few comments below …</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Jim Thomas<br class=""><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 2, 2021, at 8:27 AM, Rajan Bhakta <<a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com" class="">rbhakta@us.ibm.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""><b class="">Summary</b></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">: We had almost everything pass and make it into C23. The one exception is the numerically equal paper (N1716) where our second change needs to be reworded and the fenv paper (N2748) where we need to reword the first change (as recommended practice for example).</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">We also did not cover N2746 (overflow/underflow redefinition) since we have updated text for it that did not make it in in time and N2747 due to both time constraints and lack of clarity on whether we needed CFP2090 in or if that changed this paper.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">Raw details below:</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">5.12 Tydeman, Overlooked SNAN wording changes [N 2710]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Does WG14 want N2710 in C23 (with LDL -> LDBL)?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 16/0/2. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">5.13 Tydeman, fmin, fmax [N 2711]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Does WG14 want N2711 in C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 11/0/6. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">5.16 Tydeman, hypot() [N 2714]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Fred: Typo: Should be "returns *a* NaN" for consistency with the rest of the standard.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Put N2714 into C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 17/0/2. Goes into C23</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">5.17 Tydeman, cr_ prefix [N 2715]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Put N2715 be put into C23 with "potentially" being kept in (not removed)?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 15/0/5. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">5.18 Tydeman, Numerically equal [N 2716]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Jens: I think the the two first cases would be clearer if they say "the results compare equal".</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Alex: The first one is good, since it is number based. But the later ones, do need a modifier since it reads more that it applies to numbers.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Rajan: This is forward progress. May not be perfect. We can have Jens and Alex write papers or have it go back to CFP.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Roberto: Is numerically equal vs equal re +/-0 needed?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Freek: Is a NaN numerically equal to itself?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Fred: No.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Freek: This implies numerically equal makes a difference.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Joseph: IEEE has different levels of equal and equality. If we want to change this, we could align with them.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Rajan: CFP did consider the -ve zero case. We convinced ourselves that this change did not affect that.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Joseph: Perhaps we should have definitions for equal, equivalent. ISO has terms but not these ones. We could add something to clause 3.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Jens: I find the second case confusing. Having it compare equal is better.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Fred: We can take this back to CFP.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Roberto: These are the only two occurrences so I am OK with the changes except the 2nd one. I agree with Jens there.</font><br class=""><br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Does WG14 want changes 1 and 3 in N1716 in C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 13/0/5. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Does WG14 want change 2 in N1716 in C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 1/3/13. No consensus.</font><br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote>We can change the 2nd one to say “compare equal”. Our to say “equal (i.e., compare equal)” to avoid suggesting that “equal" and "compare equal" are different..<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Does WG14 want something along the lines of change 2 in N1716 in C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 11/0/6. Consensus.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">5.19 Thomas, C23 proposal - range error definition [N 2745]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Put N2745 into C23 without the footnote?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 12/0/7. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">5.20 Thomas, C23 proposal - overflow and underflow definitions [N 2746]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> New version based on CFP 2090.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Fred: We are withdrawing this paper for a replacement.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> </font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">7.1 Thomas, C23 proposal - Annex F overflow and underflow [N 2747]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Did not do this paper due to lack of clarity on changes from upcoming main standard updated paper on overflow/underflow from CFP and interaction with this paper.</font><br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote>Above two awaiting document number for update to N 2746. I requested the number too late.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> </font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">7.2 Thomas, C23 proposal - effects of fenv exception functions [N 2748]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Keaton: "Should" should not be in a footnote. You could use "could". You could also make it normative.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Ballman: Should implies you should do it, Could is maybe it could happen.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Joseph: If we move it out of a footnote, it could be recommended practice.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Keaton: That does work.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> </font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Put something like change 1 as recommended practice in N2748 into C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 15/0/3. Clear direction.</font><br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote>Hmm. Having recommended practice for implementation extensions seems odd. How about changing “should be honored” to “would be honored”? Or “is intended to be honored”?<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Put N2748 changes 2 and 3 into C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 16/0/2. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">7.3 Thomas, C23 proposal - IEC 60559 binding [N 2749]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Does WG14 want N2749 in C23?</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 11/0/6. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">7.4 Tydeman, static initialization of DFP zeros [N 2755]</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> Straw poll: Put N2755 into C23? (With typo corrections: implemen*t*ation)</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""> 14/1/3. Goes into C23.</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">Regards,<br class=""><br class=""></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""><b class="">Rajan Bhakta</b></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""><br class="">z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br class="">ISO C Standards Representative (Canada, USA), PL22.11 Chair<br class="">C/C++ Compiler Development</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class=""><a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com" class="">rbhakta@us.ibm.com</a></font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">IBM</font><br class="">
<br class="">
</p></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Cfp-interest mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Cfp-interest@oakapple.net" class="">Cfp-interest@oakapple.net</a><br class="">http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>