ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 N4251 - 2014-11-21Jonathan Wakely, email@example.com
WG21 Meeting No. 59 November 3-8, 2014 – Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA
Monday, November 3, 9:00am–noon
Clamage opened the meeting at 9:00am.
(ISO meeting guidelines)
Clamage pointed to the policies and instructed interested people to take a look at them.
The agenda in N4122 was unanimously approved.
The minutes of the previous meeting in N4053 and N4054 were unanimously approved.
Smith announced there is a preview working draft with resolutions to Ready issues on the meeting wiki in the "documents area".
Sutter reminded that there has been no motions to modify the main working draft at the previous meeting.
N4140, C++ Working Draft, was unanimously approved.
N4081, Library Fundamentals Working Draft, was unanimously approved.
N4084, Library Fundamentals v2 Working Draft, was unanimously approved.
N4099, Filesystem Working Draft, was unanimously approved.
N4104, Parallelism Working Draft, was unanimously approved.
N4107, Concurrency Working Draft, was unanimously approved.
Miller pointed out that while the telecon minutes contain subgroup reports, they do not contain a WG14 liaison report. Plum explained that the CPLEX meeting was canceled, and that WG14 worked on defect reports.
Sutter explained that the Technical Specification (TS) on Library Fundamentals and the TS on Parallelism are aiming for PDTS ballot resolution during the meeting. NWIP expected for the second version of Library Fundamentals. Concurrency is aiming for PDTS, as is Concepts.
Meredith pointed out that in order to gain the benefit of experience of a TS, it looks like File System, Library Fundamentals (v1), and Parallelism can hit C++17, he thinks that C++20 is the target for most others. Stroustrup thought that's too much caution. Carruth thought that the discussion should be had in WGs rather than the plenary. Sutter pointed out that the parallel tracks give us flexibility with regards to making the decision.
Each group reported their status.
Maurer went through the room arrangements. Voutilainen pointed out that since the Modules chair is not present, EWG will deal with modules, but there are scheduling challenges involved.
Monday, November 3 from afternoon break until 5:30pm. From Tuesday, November 4 to Thursday, November 6 8:30am-5:30pm. Friday, November 7 8:30am-noon.
Friday, November 7, 1:30pm–5:30pm
Clamage opened the meeting at 13:39, Sutter explained this is a ballot resolution meeting, comments were received on Parallelism TS and Library Fundamentals TS. Some additional comments were received on Wednesday. Assuming no further comments those documents will be ready to vote out the revised PDTS as DTS. Sutter is going to convene a ballot resolution telecon for ballot resolution. With no more comments it will be a short meeting. In case of comments there are motions proposing that we accept the results of the telecon. Sutter believed all current comments are resolved.
Dawes requested explicit confirmation if there are no new comments received in the next few days. Sutter agreed to confirm that.
Miller presented the CWG report, which dealt with events from this meeting only. The motions include those held over from Rapperswil, but the report didn't cover them. Most time was spent reviewing wording for TSs. Also wording review for C++17 proposals approved by EWG. Some issue processing was done, with plans to do more as well.
There were two 2-hour telecons for Concepts since Rapperswil and 2+ days of reviews at Urbana. Lots of changes made so still reviewing and not issuing PDTS at this meeting. Implementors can assume finished design. Two telecons planned in Nov and Dec and then shorter review meeting in January co-located with ranges.
Sutter thanked CWG and EWG for coordinating review of changes. Sutter asked for a show of hands to indicate preference for the location of the concepts meeting but Spicer suggested separate meetings for concepts and ranges. Sutter took a show of hands for that question first, with two in favor of co-location and many more against. The preference of location question had four more likely to attend in Seattle and six more likely in New Jersey. Eleven indicated they were likely to attend the concepts meeting. Orr asked about the number of remote attendees. Herb explained the telecons are working well and asked how many would benefit from the ability to attend remotely, with several indicating interest.
Miller continued his report. CWG looked at Transactional Memory (TM), with one 2-hour telecon and more review at this meeting. Moving as PDTS, one meeting ahead of schedule. Voutilainen applauded Maurer. Will have several TM telecons before Lenexa, not yet scheduled. Nelson asked if there is a document number for the TM TS yet.
Ballo asked why fold expressions are in C++17 not the Concepts TS. Voutilainen said EWG's guidance is not binding. Miller said it was forwarded to CWG as C++17 and approved as such. Sutton confirmed that the Concepts TS depends on the feature, so it will need to be added to the TS as well as C++17 WP.
Meredith asked about the status of incrementing bool. Miller did not know.
Sutter clarified that the Concepts meeting will be an official WG21 meeting, with a restricted agenda, so it can issue a PDTS, so that ballot comments can be received by the Lenexa meeting. Clamage asked if it counts as a PL22.16 meeting. Sutter to confirm with Nelson.
Vollman expressed desire for telecon facilities for the concepts meeting.
Clamage reminded everyone that the formal motions are now being correctly called straw polls. Sutter reminded that everyone in the ISO global directory can vote. Straw polls were taken on the CWG motions.
Meredith presented the LWG report. LWG reviewed around 25 papers and all preview comments on PDTS ballots. Meredith gave previews of ongoing work which was not on the motions page. Straw polls were taken on the LWG motions.
Yasskin gave the LEWG report and called out that in Lenexa conditionally-supported math functions are going to be covered. Implementors should read it and be prepared to discuss it. LEWG covered most of their agenda but two papers were not dealt with due to a lack of presenter.
Voutilainen gave the EWG report, saying that most new papers were dealt with. EWG is moving towards specifying evaluation order. The "highdarks" are that the group is struggling with the workload. EWG had not looked at older papers or any issues. No progress was made on arrays of runtime bound.
Voutilainen explained that improving the language is hard due to compatibility. It doesn't help that most proposals have no implementation experience or data on use experience and impact.
Voutilainen thanked the scribes (Dennett, Vandevoorde, Nishanov, Price, Wiegley) for taking minutes, stating that an evolution chair can only be as good as his scribes and these were excellent.
Winters asked about the make up of the committee, it was suggested to discuss it outside of plenary.
Price asked about status of default comparison operators. Voutilainen said the preference was for opt-in not opt-out and expects proposals in Lenexa, but too early to say what they will look like.
Crowl gave a report for SG1 (Concurrency) on behalf of Boehm. The Parallelism TS is going to DTS, with responses to comments. Moving towards Parallelism v2 but not got anything done yet. The Concurrency TS is ongoing. There was a substantial discussion on coroutines in an evening session. Issue processing remains to be done at the meeting.
Maurer asked about the status of shared_mutex. Meredith responded that it was forward from LEWG to LWG and is going to be looked at in Cologne.
Regarding SG2 (Modules) Voutilainen reported that implementations and users want to move forward and have something to play with. There has been discussion about syntax and proposed semantics, EWG gave recommendations to proceed with what is proposed.
Dawes reported that SG3 (Filesystem) would welcome proposals for different types of filesystem.
Sutter stated that SG4 (Networking) is dormant until LEWG decide to reactivate it.
Wong reported that SG5 (Transactional Memory) achieved the TS milestone. He thanked Maged Michael, Victor Luchangco, Jens Maurer, Torvald Riegel and Hans Boehm.
Crowl reported that SG6 (Numerics) met and talked about replacing std::rand(). The group looked at some issues. They are going back to math functions, which can now be conditionally-supported. They looked at typedefs for floating point types of known widths, which would naturally go to WG14 but that would not likely work, so they need to figure something out. They are looking at a TS with outstanding papers such as bignums, ratios, fixed-point arithmetic. Wong mentioned decimal floating point, which Crowl confirmed is being wokred on, but is already a separate document and will stay as such. Kühl confirmed it's a TR, there is experience with it, so it could go into the standard. Brown pointed out that it's up for review soon. Dawes asked if a TS might be started at the next meeting. Crowl said it's unlikely to be ready enough for a new work item. Sutter said the work item would be asked for at the same time as we start a working draft.
Carruth reported that most of the SG7 (Reflection) work has happened in EWG and LEWG. Source code capture is going to LEWG in Lenexa. There has been discussion on how defaulted comparisons relates to reflection. SG7 will be meeting Friday evening, discussing type property queries, and a large paper about a complete reflection mechanism across the entire language. The group want feedback for the author. Sutter asked if the paper is interesting enough that the group feels it is worth looking at without the author. Carruth said that would be discussed and if necessary he would find a champion. Carruth pointed out the original paper in the pre-Rapperswil mailing has been revised, based on feedback given after Rapperswil.
Austern (SG8, Concepts) repeated that Concepts Lite is coming out of core and will be a PDTS soon. SG8 met briefly to discuss what should be done next, agreeing it should be an updated standard library, which might end up being the same work as a Ranges TS.
Clow (SG9, Ranges) reported there was a well-attended evening session and a lot of interest and support for Niebler's direction. Sommerlad asked about timeframe of a stable product. Clow said there is no schedule, that currently there is an implementation but no wording, so it will be a while before there is a TS. The group unlikely to meet before the next meeting.
Nelson reported that SG10 (Feature Test) did not meet this week, but had a proposed document for the first revision of the standing document. There is no precedent for standing documents that are technical, rather than administrative, so it is necessary to determine how to proceed with making changes to that document. Sutter explained that the work has been done separate from the standard as a standing document and proposed that SG10 be empowered to maintain the document directly, which received unanimous agreement.
Dos Reis reported that SG13 (Undefined Behavior) looked at how to memcpy from int to float. They also looked at the preprocessor. They had previously agreed there is no reason to have undefined behavior coming from the preprocessor. They have directions on how to refine the fixes to allow sensible things but prohibit other things. It was suggested it would be good to have a more formal definition of the preprocessor. The preprocessor is used by other languages too so might want to talk to SC22 about a committee to oversee preprocessor changes, so changes can be more portable. Wong asked about recent research on security implications of undefined behaviour. Dos Reis confirmed they are aware and keeping it in mind. Carruth called attention to ubsan and requested other vendors to implement it.
Sutter reported that SG14 (I/O) was due to meet the following day. There is a substantial draft paper with wording to be reviewed on Saturday. Wong expressed confusion between Graphics and I/O, so Sutter explained that the topic has broadened to generally interacting with the user. Josuttis said I/O is confusing, and asked if it covers the concept of windows. Sutter said it explicitly excludes that, is currently only about drawing pixels. Dawes pointed out the naming must avoid acting as a lightning rod.
CWG Motion 1 was approved by unanimous consent.
CWG Motion 2 was approved by unanimous consent.
Meredith confirms LWG saw and approved the library-related wording.
CWG Motion 3 was approved by unanimous consent.
CWG Motion 4 was approved by unanimous consent.
Nelson asked whether the proposal has a feature-testing macro recommendation. It does not.
CWG Motion 5 was approved by unanimous consent.
CWG Motion 6 was approved by unanimous consent.
CWG Motion 7 was approved by unanimous consent.
Nelson asked whether the proposal has a feature-testing macro recommendation. It does not. Nelson requested that proposals should include feature-testing macros, not rely on SG10 to keep doing it.
CWG Motion 8 was approved by unanimous consent.
Meredith asked what the behaviour is for characters too large for char and was told that is ill-formed.
CWG Motion 9 was approved by unanimous consent.
Nelson asked what wasn't allowed previously. Smith explained a syntactic restriction was removed.
CWG Motion 10 was approved by unanimous consent.
CWG Motion 11 was approved by unanimous consent.
CWG Motion 12 was approved by unanimous consent.
Crowl asks what the term means and Sutton explained it. Nelson asked if it has been implemented. Perchik reported a partial implementation, using slightly different syntax. Nelson expressed concern that it only appeared in the pre-Urbana meeting, so seems rushed. Carruth stated the feature is small and will be easy to implement.
CWG Motion 13 straw poll results were:
In favor: 42 Opposed: 7 Abstain: 14
Sutter asked if those opposed had specific reasons.
Sommerlad said he wanted an implementation.
Perchik said the syntax that has been implemented is
(x @ ... y) rather than
(x @ ... @ y).
US PL22.16 members: In favor: 15 Opposed: 3 Abstain: 7
Sutter declared consensus, motion approved.
CWG Motion 14 was approved by unanimous consent.
Carruth presented an example showing a problem. BSI had the same concern.
Lavavej suggested compilers provide a dedicated warning.
Garcia expressed concern that this is the only time we introduce a new name without a type.
Josuttis explained the motivation. Lavavej pointed out that lambda init-capture introduces names without types.
Spicer wondered how people feel about concepts syntax.
Meredith said BSI agreed there's a problem but disliked the syntax.
Lavavej explained range-based
for hides the definition of variables.
Sutter requested that people let authors know sooner if they have problems with proposals.
Lavavej requested suggestions of alternate syntax.
Winters suggested training programmers to use auto&&
Vandevoorde suggested making shadowing ill-formed. Those opposed to the feature would not change their mind with that rule.
Clamage called a straw poll. CWG Motion 13 straw poll results were:
In favor: 8 Opposed: 43 abstain: 18
Motion not carried.
The motion was removed from the formal motions page.
autodeduction from braced-init-list"
CWG Motion 16 straw poll results were:
In favor: 25 Opposed: 5 abstain: 36
Sutter declared consensus, motion approved.
CWG Motion 17 was approved by unanimous consent.
Josuttis asked if digraphs remain and was told they do. Seymour asked if this has been communicated to WG14. Meredith asked if period of deprecation was considered. Wong reminded the committee that he has written a paper. IBM conceptually would not object to the motion. IBM would oppose, Canada would not.
Spicer reminded that a compiler allowing trigraphs is still conforming. Dos Reis said most compilers have trigraphs disabled by default.
Crowl asked if it only removes support from string literals or everywhere and the answer was that it removes them everywhere.
Carruth said it was voted on and removal was preferred to deprecation.
Plum said WG14 keeps an issue list for the next standard and this should go onto that list for WG14 to consider.
Clamage stated that supporting them as an extension changes the behaviour of the program.
Dennett thanked Wong for being gracious in opposition to this and allowing it to proceed, which was seconded by all present.
CWG Motion 18 straw poll results were:
In favor: 57 Opposed: 2 Abstain: 10
Sutter declared consensus, motion approved.
LWG Motion 1 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 2 was approved by unanimous consent.
Sutter explained the procedure for a future ballot telecon meeting. Spicer expressed concern at changes being made without full committee. Spicer asked about about the procedure followed during telecon. Sutter explained that if there are no more coments the telecon will only be short. Sutter repeated that he will say very soon whether or not there are any more comments.
LWG Motion 3 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 4 was approved by unanimous consent.
Ballo asked if the removed features will go back in to the TS. Meredith said that decisions would be deferred to LEWG.
LWG Motion 5 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 6 was approved by unanimous consent.
string_view::clearfrom the Library Fundamentals TS.
Meredith explained that this was a comment on the PDTS, which LWG agreed was a defect and asked LEWG to consider removing it, the LEWG poll was neutral. The LWG position strengthened that it should be removed. Van Eerd asked for confirmation it's removed not renamed, which was confirmed. Hinnant stated the same effect can already be achieved by another function anyway.
LWG Motion 7 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 8 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 9 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 10 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 11 was approved by unanimous consent.
The removal of features was applauded.
LWG Motion 12 straw poll results were:
In favor: 48 Opposed: 1 Abstain: 13
Sutter declared consensus, motion approved.
LWG Motion 13 was approved by unanimous consent.
Romer summarised that all conversions were disabled for arrays, even safe ones such as adding constness. The proposal tightens the spec to allow this. The difficulty was due to fancy pointers which complicate the specification, fancy pointer conversions are still forbidden. Lavavej asked if this is resolved by relying on a core resolution, the answer was yes, by CWG motion 6.
LWG Motion 14 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 15 was approved by unanimous consent.
Josuttis pointed out that this provides a guarantee of better performance for
Halpern pointed out this relies on allocators being nothrow default constructible, which is not currently required. Lavavej agreed it's an issue but said it should not block this change.
LWG Motion 16 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 17 was approved by unanimous consent.
Maurer pointed out there's a core issue that means it isn't entirely specified but Merrill pointed out that has been resolved at this meeting, issue 1558, part of CWG Motion 1.
LWG Motion 18 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 19 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 20 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 21 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 22 was approved by unanimous consent.
LWG Motion 23 was approved by unanimous consent.
Liber expressed strong dislike, because raw pointers already express the idea. Meredith pointed out the motion is for the TS not IS. Liber said that still implies we think it should exist. Dos Reis said a type which adds no functionality will confuse. Austern said he sees it as a way to support organisations that forbid raw pointers, but those organisations can write their own. Lavavej pointed out that the adaptors stack and queue add no functionality. Dos Reis responded that they came with the STL, don't need to copy that now.
Dennett pointed out that make_observer's interface has very different semantics from make_xxx for other smart pointers.
Romer said there is wide disagreement on exactly what idioms this is meant to support, ambiguity in what it's for suggests it's not ready.
Sutter restated Austern's point and asked whether we want portable code to be able to do that and in which case we want a standard vocabulary type.
Nishanov said "observable" means something specific in some domains.
Yasskin said it does remove some functionality, specifically pointer arithmetic and conversion to void*. Winters said there are two design choices, whether it implicitly converts from raw pointers, and whether it converts to raw pointers. Some organisations would want the opposite choices from those made by the proposal. Voutilainen believes the most important part of the proposal is that it does not convert to raw pointer.
Halpern said he wants to see it in a TS and see if people use it and find it useful. Brown stressed that it arose from experience with 8 or 9 years of usage. Was regularly cursed when introduced, but then praised. Proposed because of demonstrated utility in practice, in a very very large codebase. Would be nice to get experience reports from other big and small codebases. Sutter said that a TS is intended to gain experience with things that might not be baked. He suggested voting in favor unless already sure that you never want it to go into a standard and no TS experience would change your mind.
LWG Motion 24 straw poll results were:
In favor: 35 Opposed: 11 Abstain: 21
US PL22.16 members:
In favor: 16 Opposed: 3 Abstain: 4 US approves.
Sutter declared consensus, motion approved.
The motion was approved by unanimous consent.
Miller questioned whether now is the right time to request it, as people don't like work items being ongoing for many years. Sutter responded that the ISO time-frames are accelerated (24 months) and default (36 months) and extended, so we're in the middle of that.
When asked whether we will be able to vote out a PDTS for LFv2 in Lenexa if the current LFv2 ballot is ongoing, Sutter said they can be done in parallel and he will ensure it's done properly.
Saturday, November 8, 8:30am-noon
Clamage opened the meeting.
Maurer was applauded for his provision of cookies throughout the week.
Clamage asked if anyone wants to reopen any of the straw polls for discussion of new information and to retake the poll. There were no requests, so the Friday motion approvals stand unchanged.
Clamage asked if there were any new reactions from PL22, Hedquist confirmed there were not.
Miller asked if there was any news on mailing list technology. Sutter replied that the majority of interest was for Mailman, which will be hosted by isocpp.org, reporting that testing is underway. Clamage asked if list permission will be via self-service and Sutter said it was probable. Clamage stated that Andy Koenig will be happy. Sutter thanked Koenig for managing the mailing lists which the room applauded.
Sutter explained there would be a LWG meeting in Cologne, Germany, February 23-27, 2015 (Mo-Fr). Maurer presented details of the meeting. It is chilly in Germany at that time of year and The meeting is to be hosted by ParStream and Josuttis/Eckstein. A picture of the city and the venue were shown. Those attending are requested to register at the dooble.com page if they have not already done so, see c++std-all-4120 on the reflector. A show of hands indicated four people who are planning to come have not yet registered.
Liber requested a rough agenda for the Cologne meeting. Meredith said there was no new business, that there would be two tracks, one being review of the Networking TS proposal and the other being issue processing and pending LEWG papers. There would probably also be other TS-related library materials. There will be no actual status changes at the meeting, just move to "Ready" for quick final resolution in the subsequent meeting (Lenexa).
Sutter enquired about directions for running the meeting. Meredith requested a wiki page from EDG and requested a mid-meeting mailing. Maurer gave travel information, explaining that for many people the best option might be to fly into Frankfurt followed by a high-speed train ride. Lufthansa has an arrangement with German railways to treat Cologne Central Station as an airport with airport code QKL. Other airports are DUS and CGN. Vandevoorde said you can also get into BRU, stock up on real beer, then take the train to Cologne. Maurer directed people to N4153 (in the pre-Urbana mailing) for details. The link to the hotel is broken, so needs to be copy-pasted.
Sutter repeated the intention for a Concepts meeting in late January and said the next full WG21 meeting is in Lenexa, Kansas, USA (May 4-9, 2015). Clow pointed out that the week before the Lenexa meeting is C++Now, in Aspen, CO. The next meeting after that will be Kona, HI, USA. Oct. 19-24, hosted by Tom Plum. He is looking at Canary Wharf, London for Spring 2016 (coordinated with ACCU).
Sutter stated that he is still still convening two meetings per year as per earlier direction. Two meetings per year allows for smaller-group meeting in between (like Cologne). Sutter asked people to speak up for 3 meetings per year, receiving no significant reaction.
Sommerlad might be able to host another meeting in Rapperswil.
Voutilainen expressed a preference for three meetings per year rather than two meetings with nightly evening sessions.
Van Eerd noted that if there are many small-group meetings, he ends up traveling more because he is interested in all of them.
Meredith said he usually advocates for 3 meetings per year, but thinks that more meetings will just create more work.
Voutilainen suggested a meeting with no pre-meeting mailing. Sutter responded that mailings are still useful deadlines to give us time to "grok" new material, but that if we followed INCITS rules, we could object to late papers.
Brown made a plea for early feedback to authors if there is a strong opposition to paper and Sutter echoed the sentiment.
Meredith announced that LWG is going to have to 2 telecons, December 18 and January 29, at 8AM Pacific.
November 21 is the post-meeting mailing deadline, February 6 is the mid-meeting mailing deadline and April 10th is the pre-Lenexa deadline.
Voutilainen asked if there is any change in the procedure to get paper numbers for the mailings. Sutter confirmed that requests for paper numbers should be sent to John Spicer now.
Clamage prepared to close the meeting and was given a standing ovation. Clamage mentioned that many new attendees had remarked positively about the collegial atmosphere at the meeting, despite disagreements. He said it was a highlight of his career.
Brown proposed to thank the host. Sutter expressed thanks to the hosts and others. Brown expression sincere thanks to all participants of the meeting, which was followed by a round of applause.
Meeting adjourned by unanimous consent.
The column "WG21" designates official PL22.16 or WG21 status ("P", "A", "E", "M")
The column "PL22.16" indicates organizations eligible to vote by "V".
An "x" marks a day attended, for days unattended, the field is blank.
|Argonne National Lab||Hal Finkel||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|CERT Coordination Center||Aaron Ballman||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Cisco Systems||Martin Sebor||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|DRW Holdings||Nevin Liber||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|DRW Holdings||Thomas Rodgers||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Edison Design Group||John H. Spicer||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Edison Design Group||Daveed Vandevoorde||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Edison Design Group||Jens Maurer||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Edison Design Group||William M. Miller||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Embarcadero Technologies||Dawn Perchik||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Flight Safety International||Billy Baker||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Gimpel Software||James Widman||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|IBM||Paul E. McKenney||x||x||x||x||A|
|Indiana University||Larisse Voufo||x||A|
|KCG Holdings||Robert Douglas||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Lawrence Livermore Holdings||Michael Kumbera||x||x||x||x||x||P|
|Lexmark International||Michael Price||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Louisiana State University||Hartmut Kaiser||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Louisiana State University||Agustin Berge||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Microsoft||Gabriel Dos Reis||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Microsoft||Stephan T. Lavavej||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Morgan Stanley||Bjarne Stroustrup||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Oracle||Stephen D. Clamage||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Perennial||Beman G. Dawes||x||x||x||x||A|
|Plum Hall||Thomas Plum||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Plum Hall||FI||Ville Voutilainen||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Programming Research Group||Christof Meervald||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Red Hat||Jason Merrill||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Red Hat||UK||Jonathan Wakely||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Red Hat||Torvald Riegel||x||x||x||x||x||x||A|
|Riverbed Technology||Oleg Smolsky||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Riverbed Technology||Bob Kuo||x||A|
|Sandia National Labs||Carter Edwards||x||x||x||x||x||x||P||V|
|Blackberry||CA||Tony Van Eerd||x||M|
|Vollmann Engineering||CH||Detlef Vollmann||x||x||x||x||x||x||M|
|think-cell Software||DE||Fabio Fracassi||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|University Carlos III||ES||J. Daniel Garcia||x||x||x||x||x||x||M|
|PDT Partners||UK||Jeff Snyder||x||x||x||x||x||x||M|
|University of Akron||Andrew Sutton||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|University of Akron||Braden Obrzut||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|Taller Technologies||Daniel Gutson||x||x||x||x||x|
|Thomson Reuters||Gina Stephens||x||x|
|Ripple Labs||Howard E. Hinnant||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|Frankfurt Inst. for Adv. Studies||Matthias Kretz||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|Bob Taco Industries||Michael McLaughlin||x||x|
|Roundhouse Consulting||Pete Becker||x||x||x||x||x|