akira <4kir4...@gmail.com> added the comment: > No, it's not really a bug: math.log(x, 2) isn't an atomic operation:
It is not a bug, but values of math.log(4) differs between 3.1 and 3.2 i.e., math.log(4.0) in 3.2 returns value that is consistent with math.log(4) in 3.1 but math.log(4) in 3.2 doesn't. > I'm not sure what you're using math.log(x, 2) for, but you may be interested in the int.bit_length method. The docs for int.bit_length say: > if x is nonzero, then x.bit_length() is the unique positive integer k such that 2**(k-1) <= abs(x) < 2**k. Equivalently, when abs(x) is small enough to have a correctly rounded logarithm, then k = 1 + int(log(abs(x), 2)). It is expected that int(log(n,2)) produces correct result for small n. > Having said that, it would be possible to improve the algorithm that's used to compute log of an integer (see the loghelper function in Modules/mathmodule.c): currently, for positive k, log(2**k) ends up being computed as log(0.5) + (k+1)*log(2), which doesn't help; it would be slightly better if it were computed directly as k*log(2) instead. But you still can't (and shouldn't) rely on log(x, 2) giving exact results for powers of 2. I've changed loghelper() to return improved result for power of 2 ---------- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file19030/math_log_power_two.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9959> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com