[PATCH 0/8] Refactor libm-tests.c and friends

[Paul E. Murphy]

On 05/18/2016 04:39 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I don't see anything in this series to address cases where arguments or 
> results in libm-test.inc are e.g. M_PI_2l.  Is that deliberately intended 
> to be addressed later, or did I miss something in the series?
> 
> (It obviously *does* need to be addressed for float128; you can't use 
> M_PI_2l as an expected result when long double is IBM long double and 
> you're testing float128, because float128 has higher precision than long 
> double in that case, so an inaccurate expected result would show spurious 
> large errors.)
> 

Thanks for catching that. Indeed, those too will require another patch.