[PATCH 1/8] Begin refactor of libm-test.inc

[Joseph Myers]

On Wed, 18 May 2016, Paul E. Murphy wrote:

> 	[TEST_COND_gt_binary64]: Likewise.

I don't like this TEST_COND_gt_binary64.

If the condition combines TEST_LDOUBLE with something about mantissa bits 
or exponents for long double, only the thing about mantissa bits or 
exponents is actually needed.  If it's TEST_LDOUBLE on its own (or 
combined with conditions on integer types rather than on long double), as 
in e.g. tests of ceil, then testing for >= 64 mantissa bits is sufficient 
(the tests may actually only require some number between 53 and 64, but 
testing for >= 64 seems reasonable).  That is, TEST_LDOUBLE on its own can 
be treated as defined TEST_LDOUBLE && LDBL_MANT_DIG >= 64.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com