From f9a5a8e0aff67061583b31afa114a6d025b1680d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 20:07:58 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Issue #2844: Make int('42', n) consistently raise ValueError
 for invalid integers n (including n = -909).

---
 Lib/test/test_long.py | 10 ++++++++++
 Misc/NEWS             |  3 +++
 Objects/longobject.c  | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Lib/test/test_long.py b/Lib/test/test_long.py
index c47b8e3505c0e2..133702ec5f2e17 100644
--- a/Lib/test/test_long.py
+++ b/Lib/test/test_long.py
@@ -345,6 +345,16 @@ def test_long(self):
         self.assertRaises(ValueError, int, '08', 0)
         self.assertRaises(ValueError, int, '-012395', 0)
 
+        # invalid bases
+        invalid_bases = [-909,
+                          2**31-1, 2**31, -2**31, -2**31-1,
+                          2**63-1, 2**63, -2**63, -2**63-1,
+                          2**100, -2**100,
+                          ]
+        for base in invalid_bases:
+            self.assertRaises(ValueError, int, '42', base)
+
+
     def test_conversion(self):
 
         class JustLong:
diff --git a/Misc/NEWS b/Misc/NEWS
index 6899442224ef24..bbb46e0420fd2a 100644
--- a/Misc/NEWS
+++ b/Misc/NEWS
@@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ What's New in Python 3.2 Alpha 1?
 Core and Builtins
 -----------------
 
+- Issue #2844: Make int('42', n) consistently raise ValueError for
+  invalid integers n (including n = -909).
+
 - Issue #8188: Introduce a new scheme for computing hashes of numbers
   (instances of int, float, complex, decimal.Decimal and
   fractions.Fraction) that makes it easy to maintain the invariant
diff --git a/Objects/longobject.c b/Objects/longobject.c
index 3eb0c44b58cf0c..ed41010b04a17d 100644
--- a/Objects/longobject.c
+++ b/Objects/longobject.c
@@ -4098,23 +4098,34 @@ long_subtype_new(PyTypeObject *type, PyObject *args, PyObject *kwds);
 static PyObject *
 long_new(PyTypeObject *type, PyObject *args, PyObject *kwds)
 {
-    PyObject *x = NULL;
-    int base = -909;                         /* unlikely! */
+    PyObject *obase = NULL, *x = NULL;
+    long base;
+    int overflow;
     static char *kwlist[] = {"x", "base", 0};
 
     if (type != &PyLong_Type)
         return long_subtype_new(type, args, kwds); /* Wimp out */
-    if (!PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "|Oi:int", kwlist,
-                                     &x, &base))
+    if (!PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(args, kwds, "|OO:int", kwlist,
+                                     &x, &obase))
         return NULL;
     if (x == NULL)
         return PyLong_FromLong(0L);
-    if (base == -909)
+    if (obase == NULL)
         return PyNumber_Long(x);
-    else if (PyUnicode_Check(x))
+
+    base = PyLong_AsLongAndOverflow(obase, &overflow);
+    if (base == -1 && PyErr_Occurred())
+        return NULL;
+    if (overflow || (base != 0 && base < 2) || base > 36) {
+        PyErr_SetString(PyExc_ValueError,
+                        "int() arg 2 must be >= 2 and <= 36");
+        return NULL;
+    }
+
+    if (PyUnicode_Check(x))
         return PyLong_FromUnicode(PyUnicode_AS_UNICODE(x),
                                   PyUnicode_GET_SIZE(x),
-                                  base);
+                                  (int)base);
     else if (PyByteArray_Check(x) || PyBytes_Check(x)) {
         /* Since PyLong_FromString doesn't have a length parameter,
          * check here for possible NULs in the string. */
@@ -4129,10 +4140,10 @@ long_new(PyTypeObject *type, PyObject *args, PyObject *kwds)
                x is a bytes or buffer, *and* a base is given. */
             PyErr_Format(PyExc_ValueError,
                          "invalid literal for int() with base %d: %R",
-                         base, x);
+                         (int)base, x);
             return NULL;
         }
-        return PyLong_FromString(string, NULL, base);
+        return PyLong_FromString(string, NULL, (int)base);
     }
     else {
         PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,