[PATCH v2 2/2] Add tests for the long double version of ecvt and fcvt

[Gabriel F. T. Gomes]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:

>* Gabriel F. T. Gomes:
>
>> +  { L (0.0), 0, 1, "" },  
>
>Do you need the L macro?  I would expect you can write the literal and
>let the compiler handle the conversation.

Hrm, I don't need it, indeed.

>>  #if DBL_MANT_DIG == 53
>> -  { 0x1p-1074, 3, -323, "494" },
>> -  { -0x1p-1074, 3, -323, "494" },
>> +  { L (0x1p-1074), 3, -323, "494" },
>> +  { L (-0x1p-1074), 3, -323, "494" },
>>  #endif  
>
>The preprocessor condition seems wrong for the long double version of
>the tests.  Does something like DBL_MANT_DIG even exist for IBM long
>double?

I thought it wouldn't matter, because, if these numbers fit in a double
typed variable, they would also fit in long double.  Anyhow, now that you
asked, I see that it would be very misleading.

I'm testing a new version.