[mypyc] Fix RecursionError from binary dunders without a reverse method

[rheard]

Fixes mypyc/mypyc#1194.

A native class that defines a binary dunder but not its reverse (e.g. __add__ without __radd__) can recurse infinitely when compiled:

class A:
    def __add__(self, other: int) -> int:
        return 1

    def __pow__(self, other: int) -> int:
        return 2

A() + A()  # RecursionError (TypeError when interpreted)
1 + A()    # RecursionError
2 ** A()   # RecursionError

The same happens when the method returns NotImplemented, as in the issue.

When the argument type check fails or the method returns NotImplemented, the slot wrapper calls CPy_CallReverseOpMethod, which looks up and calls the reverse method of the right operand. The class doesn't define __radd__, so for an instance of it the lookup finds the __radd__ wrapper that CPython adds for the nb_add slot, which calls the same slot again with the same arguments.

The wrappers now return NotImplemented instead, as the slots of built-in types do. CPython's binary_op1()/ternary_op() already try the right operand's slot when its type has a different one, so the explicit call isn't needed. CPy_CallReverseOpMethod and the interned reverse method names are removed, since nothing else uses them.

Other changes, all matching CPython:

• A reverse method on another type is called once instead of twice when it returns NotImplemented.
• x ** "a" raises unsupported operand type(s) for ** or pow(): ... instead of ... for **: .... Two existing tests are updated for this.
• If an interpreted subclass defines __radd__, s + s no longer calls it when __add__ rejects the operand, since CPython doesn't try the reflected method for operands of the same type either.

[JukkaL]

Thanks, this also seems to improve performance! I have one optional performance suggestion, which seems to improve performance still a bit more on free-threaded builds.

[JukkaL]

Use Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED;, which would avoid an immortality check on Python 3.12+?

[rheard]

Sure, thats a good idea. I like that and have done it.

The reason I did it that way though was because I was copying the other 2 instances of it in this file, like on line 452. It makes sense to me that if I'm going to be changing it here, I should probably change it across this file. Hope that isn't considered too out of scope. Let me know.

Thanks again for the suggestion.