Fix sum() and prod() for tuples

base/tuple.jl

@@ -488,17 +488,12 @@ reverse(t::Tuple) = revargs(t...)
 
 ## specialized reduction ##
 
-# TODO: these definitions cannot yet be combined, since +(x...)
-# where x might be any tuple matches too many methods.
-# TODO: this is inconsistent with the regular sum in cases where the arguments
-# require size promotion to system size.
-sum(x::Tuple{Any, Vararg{Any}}) = +(x...)
-
-# NOTE: should remove, but often used on array sizes
-# TODO: this is inconsistent with the regular prod in cases where the arguments
-# require size promotion to system size.
 prod(x::Tuple{}) = 1
-prod(x::Tuple{Any, Vararg{Any}}) = *(x...)
+# This is consistent with the regular prod because there is no need for size promotion
+# if all elements in the tuple are of system size.
+# It is defined here separately in order to support bootstrap, because it's needed earlier
+# than the general prod definition is available.
+prod(x::Tuple{Int, Vararg{Int}}) = *(x...)
 
 all(x::Tuple{}) = true
 all(x::Tuple{Bool}) = x[1]

test/tuple.jl

@@ -361,6 +361,24 @@ end
     @test prod(()) === 1
     @test prod((1,2,3)) === 6
 
+    # issue 39182
+    @test sum((0xe1, 0x1f)) === sum([0xe1, 0x1f])
+    @test sum((Int8(3),)) === Int(3)
+    @test sum((UInt8(3),)) === UInt(3)
+    @test sum((3,)) === Int(3)
+    @test sum((3.0,)) === 3.0
+    @test sum(("a",)) == sum(["a"])
+    @test sum((0xe1, 0x1f), init=0x0) == sum([0xe1, 0x1f], init=0x0)
+
+    # issue 39183
+    @test prod((Int8(100), Int8(100))) === 10000
+    @test prod((Int8(3),)) === Int(3)
+    @test prod((UInt8(3),)) === UInt(3)
+    @test prod((3,)) === Int(3)
+    @test prod((3.0,)) === 3.0
+    @test prod(("a",)) == prod(["a"])
+    @test prod((0xe1, 0x1f), init=0x1) == prod([0xe1, 0x1f], init=0x1)
+
     @testset "all" begin
         @test all(()) === true
         @test all((false,)) === false