Add C23 long_double_t, _FloatN_t

Add C23 long_double_t, _FloatN_t

C23 Annex H adds <math.h> typedefs long_double_t and _FloatN_t
(originally introduced in TS 18661-3), analogous to float_t and
double_t.  Add these typedefs to glibc.  (There are no _FloatNx_t
typedefs.)

C23 also slightly changes the rules for how such typedef names should
be defined, compared to the definition in TS 18661-3.  In both cases,
<TYPE>_t corresponds to the evaluation format for <TYPE>, as specified
by FLT_EVAL_METHOD (for which <math.h> uses glibc's internal
__GLIBC_FLT_EVAL_METHOD).  Specifically, each FLT_EVAL_METHOD value
corresponds to some type U (for example, 64 corresponds to U =
_Float64), and for types with exactly the same set of values as U, TS
18661-3 says expressions with those types are to be evaluated to the
range and precision of type U (so <TYPE>_t is defined to U), whereas
C23 only does that for types whose values are a strict subset of those
of type U (so <TYPE>_t is defined to <TYPE>).

As with other cases where semantics changed between TS 18661 and C23,
this patch only implements the newer version of the semantics
(including adjusting existing definitions of float_t and double_t as
needed).  The new semantics are contradictory between the main
standard and Annex H for the case of FLT_EVAL_METHOD == 2 and the
choice of double_t when double and long double have the same values
(the main standard says it's defined as long double in that case,
whereas Annex H would define it as double), which I've raised on the
WG14 reflector (but I think setting FLT_EVAL_METHOD == 2 when double
and long double have the same values is a fairly theoretical
combination of features); for now glibc follows the value in the main
standard in that case.

Note that I think all existing GCC targets supported by glibc only use
values -1, 0, 1, 2 or 16 for FLT_EVAL_METHOD (so most of the header
code is somewhat theoretical, though potentially relevant with other
compilers since the choice of FLT_EVAL_METHOD is only an API choice,
not an ABI one; it can vary with compiler options, and these typedefs
should not be used in ABIs).  The testcase (expanded to cover the new
typedefs) is really just repeating the same logic in a second place
(so all it really tests is that __GLIBC_FLT_EVAL_METHOD is consistent
with FLT_EVAL_METHOD).

Tested for x86_64 and x86, and with build-many-glibcs.py.