[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

raw partial April 15 Minutes



[There were three note-takers. Here are my notes.]
IEEE 754r Meeting minutes March 17, 2004
Sun, Santa Clara

Attendees:      Affiliation
Dan Zuras       Self
David Hough     Sun
Dick Delp       Self
Eric Schwartz   IBM
Jeff Kidder     Intel (minute taker)
Jim Thomas      HP
Joe Darcy       Sun
John Okada      HP
John Hauser     self
Matthew Applegate Arithmatica (host)
Michael Parks   Sun
Mike Cowlishaw  IBM
Peter Markstein HP
W Kahan         Univ of Calif
ejr             UCB

Note taker: Jeff Kidder

Called to order 10:05
Agenda:
Draft review
NaN
Extended

* Draft review

3.0 At level 3 represent qNaN vs sNaN first at level 3.
(in the draft it was just NaN vs sNaN). This change
rippled through in a few other places.

"digit string" or "digit sequence"?

4.1.1 accepted
4.1.2 accepted
5.3 accepted
5.4 changed "as specified in 7" changed to "as specified in section 7"

5.5 accepted (with change of "number" to "representation" in title and
in the body with some wording change)

5.11 Accepted (including "canonical")

5.12
changed to "result representable entities depend only on the operand
representable entities"

"whether or not"  accepted
Table 2
Move conversion from a binary format to a decimal format to first table

Still need to resolve the max(NaN,NaN) and min(NaN,NaN) cases.

6.2 accepted
6.3 accepted
7.1 accepted three changes
Appendix 1 accepted

*MSC report out [Dan]
Asked about extension on par and deadline. Approved extension to June
2005.

Asked about naming and structure.
They suggested put everything in the normative text and
what needed to be done to comply. In particular, this
included the language text "Appendix L".

"Upward performance compatible" could be confined
to the "lower conformance level". The tighter constraints
would be included at a "higher conformance level".

E.g., sections 1-8 are the lower conformance level.
sections 1-10 are the higher conformance level.

Short term, call them section N and section L for now.

Could have an informative appendix about C99.

Should appendix 1 be in a section?

Should we treat the appendices as "specification under development".

Have both an appendix N and a section N. Things move into the section
when we agree they should be in the higher conformance level.

* Should and shall
One can have an appendix is deprecated and should use annex.
Could include normative text but generally isn't.

* Name of the split

* NaN Proposal
Open issues:
1. Decimal
2. Conversions (binary: leading bits, decimal: trailing bits)
3. sNaN encoding
3.1 preserve common QNaN bit
3.2 All 1 sNaNs?
3.3 Distinguish sNaN/quieted sNaN/ NaN from invalid/ usrNaN?)
4. Integer versions of payload functions

Next meeting May 12-13 1-5 p.m. at Intel, Jeff Kidder hosting.

754 | revision | FAQ | references | list archive