homepage

If this is a duplicate, please excuse me.
In particular, the most noticeable inaccuracy happens when the postfix if-else expression is involved. Maybe there are more of them.
The problem is quite self-explaining. The module named 'dis' will be helpful to reproduce the issue.
>>> import dis
>>> code = """(
... [
... call1(),
... call2()
... ]
... + call3()
... * call4()
... )"""
>>> dis.dis(code)
 3 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (call1)
 3 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 4 6 LOAD_NAME 1 (call2)
 9 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 12 BUILD_LIST 2
 6 15 LOAD_NAME 2 (call3)
 18 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 7 21 LOAD_NAME 3 (call4)
 24 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 27 BINARY_MULTIPLY
 28 BINARY_ADD
 29 RETURN_VALUE
>>> dis.dis(code.replace("+", "if").replace("*", "else"))
 6 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (call3)
 3 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 6 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE 25
 9 LOAD_NAME 1 (call1)
 12 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 15 LOAD_NAME 2 (call2)
 18 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 21 BUILD_LIST 2
 24 RETURN_VALUE
 7 >> 25 LOAD_NAME 3 (call4)
 28 CALL_FUNCTION 0 (0 positional, 0 keyword pair)
 31 RETURN_VALUE
I used this code to show the difference between if-else and some arithmetics.
AFAICT the feature is possible to implement, as lnotab can contain negative line differences.
I don't know whether it is just a bug or a fully intended feature, but it would be quite an enhancement to have better line number tracking, useful for debugging.
If this is implemented, it may be worth further backporting.
Possible reasons in the upstream Python/compile.c (using < instead of !=):
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/077059e0f086cf8c8b7fb9d1f053e38ddc743f59/Python/compile.c#L4092
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/077059e0f086cf8c8b7fb9d1f053e38ddc743f59/Python/compile.c#L4438 

Note that even just adding an extra arithmetic in your first expression breaks the line numbers:
>>> code = """( 
... [ 
... call1(), 
... call2() 
... ] 
... + call3() 
... * call4() 
... + call5() 
... )""" 
>>> dis.dis(code) 
 8 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (call1) 
 2 CALL_FUNCTION 0 
 4 LOAD_NAME 1 (call2) 
 6 CALL_FUNCTION 0 
 8 BUILD_LIST 2 
 10 LOAD_NAME 2 (call3) 
 12 CALL_FUNCTION 0 
 14 LOAD_NAME 3 (call4) 
 16 CALL_FUNCTION 0 
 18 BINARY_MULTIPLY 
 20 BINARY_ADD 
 22 LOAD_NAME 4 (call5) 
 24 CALL_FUNCTION 0 
 26 BINARY_ADD 
 28 RETURN_VALUE 
The closest existing bug to this would be issue 12458, specifically with Serhiy's last comment.

If the proposed solution for issue12458 be merged, this issue will be closed as a duplicate. Otherwise I have a simpler solution for this particular case (and few other cases, but not all cases in issue12458).