Introduce runtime function %OptimizeFunctionOnNextCall to manually trigger optimization.

test/mjsunit/compiler/regress-max.js

Index: test/mjsunit/compiler/regress-max.js
diff --git a/test/mjsunit/compiler/regress-max.js b/test/mjsunit/compiler/regress-max.js
index 94c543a6a51dd88d9a1c33b688293b75b4ac9d5d..8dd4451226af6a79b11e482e9bd2175d646a985b 100644
--- a/test/mjsunit/compiler/regress-max.js
+++ b/test/mjsunit/compiler/regress-max.js
@@ -25,10 +25,15 @@
 // (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
 // OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 
+// Flags: --allow-natives-syntax
+
 // Test Math.max with negative zero as input.
 function f(x, y) { return Math.max(x, y) }
 
-for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) f(0, 0);
+for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) f(0, 0);
+%OptimizeFunctionOnNextCall(Math.max);

[Mads Ager (chromium), 2011/04/11 11:06:38]

This should get inlined if you just optimize f I think.

[Jakob Kummerow, 2011/04/11 12:55:51]

No: "Did not inline max called from f (target not inlineable).", and it doesn't
get optimized either without the explicit statement.
Want me to remove %OptimizeFunctionOnNextCall(f); instead? I guess that's not
really required for this test.

[Mads Ager (chromium), 2011/04/11 13:03:44]

I agree with you. What should matter here is that Math.max gets optimize.
Introducing f just to give Math.max a shorter name seems unnecessary. Replace
all calls to f with calls to Math.max, optimize that and check the results? 

[Jakob Kummerow, 2011/04/11 13:27:04]

Done.

+%OptimizeFunctionOnNextCall(f);
+f(0, 0);
 
 var r = f(-0, -0);
 assertEquals(-Infinity, 1 / r);