[Python-checkins] r81397 - in python/branches/py3k: Lib/test/test_complex.py Misc/NEWS Objects/complexobject.c
mark.dickinson
python-checkins at python.org
Fri May 21 16:55:26 CEST 2010
Author: mark.dickinson
Date: Fri May 21 16:55:26 2010
New Revision: 81397
Log:
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.
Patch by Meador Inge.
Modified:
python/branches/py3k/Lib/test/test_complex.py
python/branches/py3k/Misc/NEWS
python/branches/py3k/Objects/complexobject.c
Modified: python/branches/py3k/Lib/test/test_complex.py
==============================================================================
--- python/branches/py3k/Lib/test/test_complex.py (original)
+++ python/branches/py3k/Lib/test/test_complex.py Fri May 21 16:55:26 2010
@@ -110,12 +110,18 @@
self.assertRaises(TypeError, complex.__floordiv__, 3+0j, 0+0j)
def test_richcompare(self):
- self.assertRaises(OverflowError, complex.__eq__, 1+1j, 1<<10000)
+ self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(1+1j, 1<<10000), False)
self.assertIs(complex.__lt__(1+1j, None), NotImplemented)
self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(1+1j, 1+1j), True)
self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(1+1j, 2+2j), False)
self.assertIs(complex.__ne__(1+1j, 1+1j), False)
self.assertIs(complex.__ne__(1+1j, 2+2j), True)
+ for i in range(1, 100):
+ f = i / 100.0
+ self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(f+0j, f), True)
+ self.assertIs(complex.__ne__(f+0j, f), False)
+ self.assertIs(complex.__eq__(complex(f, f), f), False)
+ self.assertIs(complex.__ne__(complex(f, f), f), True)
self.assertIs(complex.__lt__(1+1j, 2+2j), NotImplemented)
self.assertIs(complex.__le__(1+1j, 2+2j), NotImplemented)
self.assertIs(complex.__gt__(1+1j, 2+2j), NotImplemented)
@@ -129,6 +135,23 @@
self.assertIs(operator.ne(1+1j, 1+1j), False)
self.assertIs(operator.ne(1+1j, 2+2j), True)
+ 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):
# % is no longer supported on complex numbers
self.assertRaises(TypeError, (1+1j).__mod__, 0+0j)
Modified: python/branches/py3k/Misc/NEWS
==============================================================================
--- python/branches/py3k/Misc/NEWS (original)
+++ python/branches/py3k/Misc/NEWS Fri May 21 16:55:26 2010
@@ -12,6 +12,19 @@
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 #8748: Fix comparisons between complex and integer objects.
+ These used to convert the integer object to a complex number before
+ doing the comparison, giving a potentially incorrect result when
+ that conversion involved precision loss. (Ex: 2**53+1 ==
+ complex(2**53) returned True; now returns False.)
+
- Issue #8766: Initialize _warnings module before importing the first module.
Fix a crash if an empty directory called "encodings" exists in sys.path.
Modified: python/branches/py3k/Objects/complexobject.c
==============================================================================
--- python/branches/py3k/Objects/complexobject.c (original)
+++ python/branches/py3k/Objects/complexobject.c Fri May 21 16:55:26 2010
@@ -620,22 +620,58 @@
complex_richcompare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
PyObject *res;
- Py_complex i, j;
- TO_COMPLEX(v, i);
- TO_COMPLEX(w, j);
+ Py_complex i;
+ int equal;
if (op != Py_EQ && op != Py_NE) {
- Py_INCREF(Py_NotImplemented);
- return Py_NotImplemented;
+ goto Unimplemented;
}
- if ((i.real == j.real && i.imag == j.imag) == (op == Py_EQ))
- res = Py_True;
+ assert(PyComplex_Check(v));
+ TO_COMPLEX(v, i);
+
+ if (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 (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 *
More information about the Python-checkins
mailing list