sequence: Fix glaring bug in sequence comparison.

py/sequence.c

+#include <assert.h>
 #include <stdbool.h>
 #include <string.h>
 
@@ -109,18 +110,24 @@ bool mp_seq_cmp_objs(int op, const mp_obj_t *items1, uint len1, const mp_obj_t *
 
     int len = len1 < len2 ? len1 : len2;
     bool eq_status = true; // empty lists are equal
-    bool rel_status;
     for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
         eq_status = mp_obj_equal(items1[i], items2[i]);
-        if (op == MP_BINARY_OP_EQUAL && !eq_status) {
-            return false;
+        // If current elements equal, can't decide anything - go on
+        if (eq_status) {
+            continue;
         }
-        rel_status = (mp_binary_op(op, items1[i], items2[i]) == mp_const_true);
-        if (!eq_status && !rel_status) {
+
+        // Othewise, if they are not equal, we can have final decision based on them
+        if (op == MP_BINARY_OP_EQUAL) {
+            // In particular, if we are checking for equality, here're the answer
             return false;
         }
+
+        // Otherwise, application of relation op gives the answer
+        return (mp_binary_op(op, items1[i], items2[i]) == mp_const_true);
     }
 
+    assert(eq_status);
     // If we had tie in the last element...
     if (eq_status) {
         // ... and we have lists of different lengths...

tests/basics/tuple_compare.py

@@ -48,3 +48,8 @@ print((1,) <= (1, 0,))
 print((1,) <= (1, -1,))
 print((1, 0,) <= (1,))
 print((1, -1,) <= (1,))
+
+print((10, 0) > (1, 1))
+print((10, 0) < (1, 1))
+print((0, 0, 10, 0) > (0, 0, 1, 1))
+print((0, 0, 10, 0) < (0, 0, 1, 1))