exposing some methods from objects.h (alternative to counters)

exposing a few boolean queries from objects.h

TEST=start with ./d8 --allow-natives-syntax and try %ObjectHasFastElements({})

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=8514

[Yang, 2011-06-30 08:54:49]

I cooked up something to expose danno's requested JSObject methods in
--allow-natives-syntax mode, as alternative to using counters in test cases.

The syntax to get HasFastElements() for example is
%ObjectHasFastElements(jsobject)

Cheers,

Yang

http://codereview.chromium.org/7289010/diff/1/src/runtime.cc
File src/runtime.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7289010/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode12478
src/runtime.cc:12478: 
I hope adding yet another macro is alright. Saves a lot of repetitive code.

[danno, 2011-06-30 17:24:04]

LGTM with comments.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7289010/diff/1/src/runtime.cc
File src/runtime.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7289010/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode12478
src/runtime.cc:12478: 
On 2011/06/30 08:54:49, yangguo wrote:
> I hope adding yet another macro is alright. Saves a lot of repetitive code.

The macro is OK.

I would prefer to make this specific to the elements type for now.
Call the macro ELEMENTS_KIND_CHECK_RUNTIME_FUNCTION that are of the form that
supports a definition list of the following form:

ELEMENTS_KIND_CHECK_RUNTIME_FUNCTION(FastElements);
ELEMENTS_KIND_CHECK_RUNTIME_FUNCTION(FastDoubleElements);
....

http://codereview.chromium.org/7289010/diff/1/src/runtime.h
File src/runtime.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7289010/diff/1/src/runtime.h#newcode340
src/runtime.h:340: F(ObjectHasFastElements, 1, 1) \
Is there any reason that you don't call these HasXXX rather than ObjectHasXXX?
Names without the Object prefix are more consistent with other functions like
HasProperty or HasElement.

[Yang, 2011-07-01 08:23:41]

Implemented danno's suggestions. Just need another quick look.

[Yang, 2011-07-01 08:23:41]

Implemented danno's suggestions. Just need another quick look.

[Jakob Kummerow, 2011-07-01 08:29:39]

How about adding a test? ;-)

[Yang, 2011-07-01 11:27:05]

On 2011/07/01 08:29:39, jkummerow wrote:
> How about adding a test? ;-)

I added the suggested test. It is kind of trivial though.

Nevermind the changes in runtime.*, those are not mine. I shouldn't have rebased
:|

[Jakob Kummerow, 2011-07-01 11:37:32]

LGTM