[PATCHv2 5/5] ldbl-128: Fix minor readability issues after applying L(x) macro.

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Paul E. Murphy wrote:

> The scripted changes did not provision for spacing issues
> introduced by the scripted changes.
> 
> This cleans up spacing in tables, and applies -L(x) to L(-x)
> transformations when it helps to improve readibility.

I wonder if L(-x) should just be used consistently everywhere (so as part 
of the conversion to use L() in the first place).  While formally -L(x) is 
correct, unary minus not being part of the constant, L(-x) probably 
accords better with how people actually read negated constants.  
gen-libm-test.pl applies LIT to negated constants like that, which seems 
consistent with using L(-x) as well.

(I agree that there are cases where one subjectively might wish to use L() 
for consistency instead of using an integer constant.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com