[Python-checkins] r81610 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_complex.py Misc/NEWS Objects/complexobject.c

[mark.dickinson]

Author: mark.dickinson
Date: Sun May 30 15:18:10 2010
New Revision: 81610

Log:
Issue #8748: Fix incorrect results from comparisons between an integer
and a complex instance.  Based on a patch by Meador Inge.


Modified:
   python/trunk/Lib/test/test_complex.py
   python/trunk/Misc/NEWS
   python/trunk/Objects/complexobject.c

Modified: python/trunk/Lib/test/test_complex.py
==============================================================================
--- python/trunk/Lib/test/test_complex.py	(original)
+++ python/trunk/Lib/test/test_complex.py	Sun May 30 15:18:10 2010
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@
         self.assertTrue(a < 2.0j)
 
     def test_richcompare(self):
-        self.assertRaises(OverflowError, complex.__eq__, 1+1j, 1L<<10000)
+        self.assertEqual(complex.__eq__(1+1j, 1L<<10000), False)
         self.assertEqual(complex.__lt__(1+1j, None), NotImplemented)
         self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(1+1j, 1+1j), True)
         self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(1+1j, 2+2j), False)
@@ -140,6 +140,23 @@
         self.assertRaises(TypeError, complex.__gt__, 1+1j, 2+2j)
         self.assertRaises(TypeError, complex.__ge__, 1+1j, 2+2j)
 
+    def test_richcompare_boundaries(self):
+        def check(n, deltas, is_equal, imag = 0.0):
+            for delta in deltas:
+                i = n + delta
+                z = complex(i, imag)
+                self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(z, i), is_equal(delta))
+                self.assertIs(complex.__ne__(z, i), not is_equal(delta))
+        # For IEEE-754 doubles the following should hold:
+        #    x in [2 ** (52 + i), 2 ** (53 + i + 1)] -> x mod 2 ** i == 0
+        # where the interval is representable, of course.
+        for i in range(1, 10):
+            pow = 52 + i
+            mult = 2 ** i
+            check(2 ** pow, range(1, 101), lambda delta: delta % mult == 0)
+            check(2 ** pow, range(1, 101), lambda delta: False, float(i))
+        check(2 ** 53, range(-100, 0), lambda delta: True)
+
     def test_mod(self):
         self.assertRaises(ZeroDivisionError, (1+1j).__mod__, 0+0j)
 

Modified: python/trunk/Misc/NEWS
==============================================================================
--- python/trunk/Misc/NEWS	(original)
+++ python/trunk/Misc/NEWS	Sun May 30 15:18:10 2010
@@ -12,6 +12,13 @@
 Core and Builtins
 -----------------
 
+- Issue #8748: Fix two issues with comparisons between complex and integer
+  objects.  (1) The comparison could incorrectly return True in some cases
+  (2**53+1 == complex(2**53) == 2**53), breaking transivity of equality.
+  (2) The comparison raised an OverflowError for large integers, leading
+  to unpredictable exceptions when combining integers and complex objects
+  in sets or dicts.
+
 - Issue #5211: Implicit coercion for the complex type is now completely
   removed.  (Coercion for arithmetic operations was already removed in 2.7
   alpha 4, but coercion for rich comparisons was accidentally left in.)

Modified: python/trunk/Objects/complexobject.c
==============================================================================
--- python/trunk/Objects/complexobject.c	(original)
+++ python/trunk/Objects/complexobject.c	Sun May 30 15:18:10 2010
@@ -783,25 +783,70 @@
 static PyObject *
 complex_richcompare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
 {
-    Py_complex i, j;
     PyObject *res;
+    Py_complex i;
+    int equal;
 
+    if (op != Py_EQ && op != Py_NE) {
+        /* for backwards compatibility, comparisons with non-numbers return
+         * NotImplemented.  Only comparisons with core numeric types raise
+         * TypeError.
+         */
+        if (PyInt_Check(w) || PyLong_Check(w) ||
+            PyFloat_Check(w) || PyComplex_Check(w)) {
+            PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
+                            "no ordering relation is defined "
+                            "for complex numbers");
+            return NULL;
+        }
+        goto Unimplemented;
+    }
+
+    assert(PyComplex_Check(v));
     TO_COMPLEX(v, i);
-    TO_COMPLEX(w, j);
 
-    if (op != Py_EQ && op != Py_NE) {
-        PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
-            "no ordering relation is defined for complex numbers");
-        return NULL;
+    if (PyInt_Check(w) || PyLong_Check(w)) {
+        /* Check for 0.0 imaginary part first to avoid the rich
+         * comparison when possible.
+         */
+        if (i.imag == 0.0) {
+            PyObject *j, *sub_res;
+            j = PyFloat_FromDouble(i.real);
+            if (j == NULL)
+                return NULL;
+
+            sub_res = PyObject_RichCompare(j, w, op);
+            Py_DECREF(j);
+            return sub_res;
+        }
+        else {
+            equal = 0;
+        }
+    }
+    else if (PyFloat_Check(w)) {
+        equal = (i.real == PyFloat_AsDouble(w) && i.imag == 0.0);
+    }
+    else if (PyComplex_Check(w)) {
+        Py_complex j;
+
+        TO_COMPLEX(w, j);
+        equal = (i.real == j.real && i.imag == j.imag);
+    }
+    else {
+        goto Unimplemented;
     }
 
-    if ((i.real == j.real && i.imag == j.imag) == (op == Py_EQ))
-        res = Py_True;
+    if (equal == (op == Py_EQ))
+         res = Py_True;
     else
-        res = Py_False;
+         res = Py_False;
 
     Py_INCREF(res);
     return res;
+
+  Unimplemented:
+    Py_INCREF(Py_NotImplemented);
+    return Py_NotImplemented;
 }
 
 static PyObject *