Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > It's a bug that keeps resurfacing, probably because there's no portable > way to test that it stays fixed :-( (it's not an accident that the OP > relied on atan2 to distinguish +0.0 from -0.0! they act the same in
Please take a look at my patch 1678668, brand new at <http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php> and as yet unassigned (hint, hint:-). I hope it satisfies your very reasonable lament about the bug resurfacing once in a while, since it included one more unittest to check whether the bug is there (TDD rocks!-), based exactly on the behavior of atan2 (only on IEEE-format machines, though). > 2.5 introduced a new front end and more ambitious constant-folding, and > I expect the bug showed up again due to one of those. Yep, in ast.c's ast_for_factor -- it lacks the specialcasing that peephole.c does have (and my patch essentially adds it back). If it's worth specialcasing in peephole.c (and I strongly agree with Raymond's implicit opinion that it is), it should be just as worth specialcasing in ast.c, no?-) Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
