From cc6a982de8b9030a04d85f69a29772bf6c3f442f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:55:26 +0000
Subject: 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.
---
 Lib/test/test_complex.py | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
 Misc/NEWS                | 13 ++++++++++++
 Objects/complexobject.c  | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Lib/test/test_complex.py b/Lib/test/test_complex.py
index 6441208..f6c7cc3 100644
--- a/Lib/test/test_complex.py
+++ b/Lib/test/test_complex.py
@@ -110,12 +110,18 @@ class ComplexTest(unittest.TestCase):
         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 @@ class ComplexTest(unittest.TestCase):
         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)
diff --git a/Misc/NEWS b/Misc/NEWS
index 5ac16df..9772a15 100644
--- a/Misc/NEWS
+++ b/Misc/NEWS
@@ -12,6 +12,19 @@ What's New in Python 3.2 Alpha 1?
 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.
 
diff --git a/Objects/complexobject.c b/Objects/complexobject.c
index ec26e0a..9e1e217 100644
--- a/Objects/complexobject.c
+++ b/Objects/complexobject.c
@@ -620,22 +620,58 @@ static PyObject *
 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 *
-- 
cgit v0.12