This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCHv2 5/5] ldbl-128: Fix minor readability issues after applying L(x) macro.
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