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

[Paul E. Murphy]

On 05/18/2016 04:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> 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.

Admittedly, I scratched my head here try to find a conservative method to
replace the TEST_LDOUBLE usage.  If it is only used as a bandaid for
testing ldbl formats which are more expressive than dbl, can't it just
go away without issue?  It isn't used in isolation.