Notes for meeting at Sun in Menlo Park on Thursday 5/12/05 in
	the xxx Room in Building 14.  David Hough hosted us.
	Prof Kahan, Peter Markstein, Ivan Godard, Jeff Kidder, & Dan
	Zuras attended.  Mark Erle, Mike Cowlishaw, Jim Thomas, Dave
	James, & Leonard Tsai were on the phone.


	As Roger Golliver was not present, we began with Dave James'
	tables proposal.  Sounds reasonable if (BIG IF) they can be
	make both up to date & correct.

	Roger had some trouble with security but when he finally got
	through, we discussed min/max.  Roger's experiments (on Itanium,
	x87, & SSE/SSE2) suggest that the cost of special handling of
	+/-0 & NaNs is high (3x, 2x, & 12x, respectively).  We argued
	in favor of both consistent behavior (among compilers &
	machines) & symmetric definitions.  Jim did a quick experiment
	on his compiler that suggested that either definition of min
	was reasonably fast on an Itanium in a loop unrolled by 8.
	Jeff suggested that the behavior WRT NaNs is more important
	than the behavior WRT +/-0 with general agreement.  It looks
	like we'd be willing to give up the sign of zero.  David's
	position was that either minnum or minnan is OK so long as
	minany is symmetric WRT NaNs & numbers.

	Ivan proposed that there shall be a min defined as totalorder
	& conditional move & filtering depends on the name of the
	function.  Jeff countered with the required min is the fusion
	of the less than condition & a conditional move.  I proposed
	a symmetric max/min which ignores the sign of zero & filters
	out NaNs.  Ivan proposed removing the definition on the grounds
	that ANY NaN semantics can be composed from isNaN & relations.
	(Dave showed Ivan's slide at this point.)  Kahan proposed that
	it must be commutative & the default shall be to pass numbers
	over NaNs & he doesn't care about the sign of zero.

(*)	I will write up a specific proposal which loses the sign of
(*)	zero.  Mike is OK with a min/max that ignores cohort.  Call
(*)	out sNaN & flag behavior.

	Kahan wanted to discuss the SPEC meeting next Tuesday.  He
	described our meeting last Friday & what we might propose.
	Ivan said the linpack benchmark used on the Top500 list is
	generally thought of as unreal & people desire to replace it.

	We moved on to the proposals at this point.  Appendix1 seems
	to be a slam dunk but for Kent Karlsson's details.  Widenan2
	got some discussion.  Some deserved.  Some not.

	Ivan wants a separate issue on what happens with noncanonical
	declets.  (When I looked at the text of the draft, it turned
	out that what Ivan wanted is already permitted.)

	Ivan's position is that the payload of ALL NaNs (signalling
	or quiet) is the property of the system & not the user.  And
	Jeff pointed out that not knowing what the system does with ITS
	NaNs means that a user can't portably introduce HIS/HER private
	NaNs and realiably recognise it when it appears as a result.
	This would seem to be both true & VERY limiting on the reliable
	utility of NaNs of ANY flavor in portable user code.

	Back on point, Dave's widenan2 proposal is stated in the
	positive (WRT canonical declets) & hasn't been objected to on
	point.

	The comments about the integral proposal were largely about
	names but both Ivan & Jim had comments on the specific set of
	functions which SHOULD be provided.  Dave propoased a new drint
	to fill out the 5th (dynamic) case.  But Jim wouldn't change
	his vote so he didn't do it.  Jim wanted Dave to 'factor' his
	proposal to separate the introduction of the new functions from
	the removal of the old ones.  In the end, he let it ride the way
	it is.

(*)	I should vote on all of these.

	At the end, Ivan pointed out that Jeff's observation means we
	must:
		(1) Say who owns the NaN space & prevent anyone else
		from using it or

		(2) partition that space or

		(3) acknowledge that the conundrum implies that no
		more than one NaN can be counted on in any reliable way.

	Done for dinner.
	----

	Roger Golliver wishes to discuss min/max.

	Dave James wishes to discuss the introduction of explanatory
	tables for each of the operations.

	Objections to current proposals:

		APPENDIX1:
			Kent Karlsson

		CONVERT-INTEGER:
			Kent Karlsson
			Jim Thomas
			Nelson Beebe

		INTEGRAL:
			Kent Karlsson
			Jim Thomas
			Nelson Beebe
			Paul Zimmermann
			Vincent LeFevre

		WIDENAN2:
			Kent Karlsson
			Dave James
			Dick Delp
			Ivan Godard