Merged revisions 60475-60479,60481-60488 via svnmerge from

svn+ssh://pythondev@svn.python.org/python/trunk

........
  r60482 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-01-31 23:07:16 +0100 (Thu, 31 Jan 2008) | 1 line

  Minor wordsmithing on docstring
........
  r60483 | mark.dickinson | 2008-01-31 23:17:37 +0100 (Thu, 31 Jan 2008) | 5 lines

  Issue #1678380.  Fix a bug that identifies 0j and -0j when they appear
  in the same code unit. The fix is essentially the same as the fix for a
  previous bug identifying 0. and -0.
........
  r60484 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-01 00:08:23 +0100 (Fri, 01 Feb 2008) | 1 line

  Fixed bug #1983: Return from fork() is pid_t, not int
........
  r60486 | jeffrey.yasskin | 2008-02-01 07:22:46 +0100 (Fri, 01 Feb 2008) | 4 lines

  Move __builtins__.trunc() to math.trunc() per
  http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076626.html and issue
  1965.
........
  r60487 | jeffrey.yasskin | 2008-02-01 08:05:46 +0100 (Fri, 01 Feb 2008) | 3 lines

  Roll back r60248. It's useful to encourage users not to change Rational
  instances.
........
  r60488 | neal.norwitz | 2008-02-01 08:22:59 +0100 (Fri, 01 Feb 2008) | 1 line

  Fix refleak
........

Python/bltinmodule.c

@@ -1570,40 +1570,6 @@ PyDoc_STRVAR(vars_doc,
 Without arguments, equivalent to locals().\n\
 With an argument, equivalent to object.__dict__.");
 
-static PyObject *
-builtin_trunc(PyObject *self, PyObject *number)
-{
-	static PyObject *trunc_str = NULL;
-	PyObject *trunc;
-
-	if (Py_TYPE(number)->tp_dict == NULL) {
-		if (PyType_Ready(Py_TYPE(number)) < 0)
-			return NULL;
-	}
-
-	if (trunc_str == NULL) {
-		trunc_str = PyUnicode_InternFromString("__trunc__");
-		if (trunc_str == NULL)
-			return NULL;
-	}
-
-	trunc = _PyType_Lookup(Py_TYPE(number), trunc_str);
-	if (trunc == NULL) {
-		PyErr_Format(PyExc_TypeError,
-			     "type %.100s doesn't define __trunc__ method",
-			     Py_TYPE(number)->tp_name);
-		return NULL;
-	}
-	return PyObject_CallFunction(trunc, "O", number);
-}
-
-PyDoc_STRVAR(trunc_doc,
-"trunc(Real) -> Integral\n\
-\n\
-returns the integral closest to x between 0 and x.");
-
-
-
 static PyObject*
 builtin_sum(PyObject *self, PyObject *args)
 {
@@ -1870,7 +1836,6 @@ static PyMethodDef builtin_methods[] = {
  	{"sorted",	(PyCFunction)builtin_sorted,     METH_VARARGS | METH_KEYWORDS, sorted_doc},
  	{"sum",		builtin_sum,        METH_VARARGS, sum_doc},
  	{"vars",	builtin_vars,       METH_VARARGS, vars_doc},
- 	{"trunc",	builtin_trunc,      METH_O, trunc_doc},
   	{"zip",         builtin_zip,        METH_VARARGS, zip_doc},
 	{NULL,		NULL},
 };

Python/compile.c

@@ -885,24 +885,59 @@ compiler_add_o(struct compiler *c, PyObject *dict, PyObject *o)
 {
 	PyObject *t, *v;
 	Py_ssize_t arg;
+	unsigned char *p, *q;
+	Py_complex z;
+	double d;
+	int real_part_zero, imag_part_zero;
 
 	/* necessary to make sure types aren't coerced (e.g., int and long) */
         /* _and_ to distinguish 0.0 from -0.0 e.g. on IEEE platforms */
         if (PyFloat_Check(o)) {
-            double d = PyFloat_AS_DOUBLE(o);
-            unsigned char* p = (unsigned char*) &d;
-            /* all we need is to make the tuple different in either the 0.0
-             * or -0.0 case from all others, just to avoid the "coercion".
-             */
-            if (*p==0 && p[sizeof(double)-1]==0)
-                t = PyTuple_Pack(3, o, o->ob_type, Py_None);
-            else
-	        t = PyTuple_Pack(2, o, o->ob_type);
-        } else {
-	    t = PyTuple_Pack(2, o, o->ob_type);
+		d = PyFloat_AS_DOUBLE(o);
+		p = (unsigned char*) &d;
+		/* all we need is to make the tuple different in either the 0.0
+		 * or -0.0 case from all others, just to avoid the "coercion".
+		 */
+		if (*p==0 && p[sizeof(double)-1]==0)
+			t = PyTuple_Pack(3, o, o->ob_type, Py_None);
+		else
+			t = PyTuple_Pack(2, o, o->ob_type);
+	}
+	else if (PyComplex_Check(o)) {
+		/* complex case is even messier: we need to make complex(x,
+		   0.) different from complex(x, -0.) and complex(0., y)
+		   different from complex(-0., y), for any x and y.  In
+		   particular, all four complex zeros should be
+		   distinguished.*/
+		z = PyComplex_AsCComplex(o);
+		p = (unsigned char*) &(z.real);
+		q = (unsigned char*) &(z.imag);
+		/* all that matters here is that on IEEE platforms
+		   real_part_zero will be true if z.real == 0., and false if
+		   z.real == -0.  In fact, real_part_zero will also be true
+		   for some other rarely occurring nonzero floats, but this
+		   doesn't matter. Similar comments apply to
+		   imag_part_zero. */
+		real_part_zero = *p==0 && p[sizeof(double)-1]==0;
+		imag_part_zero = *q==0 && q[sizeof(double)-1]==0;
+		if (real_part_zero && imag_part_zero) {
+			t = PyTuple_Pack(4, o, o->ob_type, Py_True, Py_True);
+		}
+		else if (real_part_zero && !imag_part_zero) {
+			t = PyTuple_Pack(4, o, o->ob_type, Py_True, Py_False);
+		}
+		else if (!real_part_zero && imag_part_zero) {
+			t = PyTuple_Pack(4, o, o->ob_type, Py_False, Py_True);
+		}
+		else {
+			t = PyTuple_Pack(2, o, o->ob_type);
+		}
+        }
+	else {
+		t = PyTuple_Pack(2, o, o->ob_type);
         }
 	if (t == NULL)
-	    return -1;
+		return -1;
 
 	v = PyDict_GetItem(dict, t);
 	if (!v) {

Python/marshal.c

@@ -833,6 +833,7 @@ r_object(RFILE *p)
                                 v = NULL;
                                 break;
                         }
+                        Py_DECREF(v2);
 		}
 		retval = v;
 		break;