John:

I have not seen anything addressing my comments of April 20:

http://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-144/msg/5617681

and some of the simple issues mentioned there (for example, for fllog1+)
have not been fixed in your current draft.

In reviewing my previous comments, I see I should say more about fl+*:

The "fma" operation means "*fused* multiply-add", if it isn't fused it
isn't fma.  If fl+* isn't fma, then  fl-fast-fl+* isn't FP_FAST_FMA.

So I recommended the name change from fl+* to flfma to match C99; and I
recommended the description changes to match the C99 descriptions of
those operations and constants.

Brad