bpo-37269: Correctly optimise conditionals with constant booleans (GH-14071)

Fix a regression introduced by af8646c805 that was causing code of the form:

if True and False:
   do_something()

to be optimized incorrectly, eliminating the block.

Lib/test/test_peepholer.py

@@ -414,6 +414,13 @@ class TestTranforms(BytecodeTestCase):
                 pass
         self.assertEqual(count_instr_recursively(forloop, 'BUILD_LIST'), 0)
 
+    def test_condition_with_binop_with_bools(self):
+        def f():
+            if True or False:
+                return 1
+            return 0
+        self.assertEqual(f(), 1)
+
 
 class TestBuglets(unittest.TestCase):
 

Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core and Builtins/2019-06-14-06-32-33.bpo-37269.SjVVAe.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Fix a bug in the peephole optimizer that was not treating correctly constant
+conditions with binary operators. Patch by Pablo Galindo.

Python/peephole.c

@@ -315,6 +315,11 @@ PyCode_Optimize(PyObject *code, PyObject* consts, PyObject *names,
                     fill_nops(codestr, op_start, nexti + 1);
                     cumlc = 0;
                 } else if (is_true == 0) {
+                    if (i > 1 &&
+                        (_Py_OPCODE(codestr[i - 1]) == POP_JUMP_IF_TRUE ||
+                         _Py_OPCODE(codestr[i - 1]) == POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE)) {
+                        break;
+                    }
                     h = get_arg(codestr, nexti) / sizeof(_Py_CODEUNIT);
                     tgt = find_op(codestr, codelen, h);
                     fill_nops(codestr, op_start, tgt);