Fix Harmony sets and maps to allow null as key.

Fix Harmony sets and maps to allow null as key.

This changes the internal convention for marking deleted entries in hash
tables from null_value to the_hole_value, which is consistent with other
usages of the_hole.

R=rossberg@chromium.org,kmillikin@chromium.org
BUG=v8:1622
TEST=mjsunit/harmony/collections

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=9871

[Michael Starzinger, 2011-10-28 11:33:43]

PTAL.

[rossberg, 2011-11-02 15:17:37]

lgtm

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/src/objects-inl.h
File src/objects-inl.h (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/src/objects-inl.h#oldcode4437
src/objects-inl.h:4437: ASSERT(!key->IsUndefined() && !key->IsNull());
Don't you still need the IsUndefined part of the assertion, at least for now?

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/src/objects-inl.h#oldcode4446
src/objects-inl.h:4446: ASSERT(!other->IsUndefined() && !other->IsNull());
Same here.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/test/mjsunit/harmony/collection...
File test/mjsunit/harmony/collections.js (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/test/mjsunit/harmony/collection...
test/mjsunit/harmony/collections.js:74: for (var i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
Ts-ts-ts.

[Michael Starzinger, 2011-11-02 15:52:26]

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/src/objects-inl.h
File src/objects-inl.h (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/src/objects-inl.h#oldcode4437
src/objects-inl.h:4437: ASSERT(!key->IsUndefined() && !key->IsNull());
On 2011/11/02 15:17:37, rossberg wrote:
> Don't you still need the IsUndefined part of the assertion, at least for now?

This assertion is now covered by ASSERT(IsKey(key)) in the objects.cc functions.
I moved it there because it catches misuse of keys earlier and even for cases
where hash values are not even generated.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8343056/diff/1/src/objects-inl.h#oldcode4446
src/objects-inl.h:4446: ASSERT(!other->IsUndefined() && !other->IsNull());
On 2011/11/02 15:17:37, rossberg wrote:
> Same here.

Likewise.