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.
This commit is contained in:
Mark Dickinson 2010-05-21 14:55:26 +00:00
parent f0feec2cb6
commit cc6a982de8
3 changed files with 81 additions and 9 deletions

View file

@ -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 *