[strong] Disallow implicit conversions for binary arithmetic operations

test/mjsunit/strong/implicit-conversions.js

+// Copyright 2015 the V8 project authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+// Flags: --strong-mode --allow-natives-syntax
+
+'use strict';
+
+// TODO(conradw): Implement other strong operators
+let strong_arith = [
+    "-",

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

Don't mix ' and " in the same file. ' is preferred:

https://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javascriptguide.xml?showon...

If you modify an existing file use whatever is in there.

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

Array and Object literals should be indented 2 spaces and not 4.

https://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javascriptguide.xml?showon...

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

Will add to my followup https://codereview.chromium.org/1102923002/

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

I've been trying to be consistent in using ", which seems to be preferred by the
other strong mode tests. ' has been used to mark out string literals when the
"outer string" is passed into an eval-like function.

+    "*",
+    "/",
+    "%"
+]

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

semicolon

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

followup

+
+let nonnumber_values = [

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

nonNumberValues

https://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javascriptguide.xml?showon...

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

followup

+    "{}",
+    "'foo'",
+    "(function(){})",
+    "[]",
+    "'0'",
+    "'NaN'",
+    "(class Foo {})"
+]
+
+let number_values = [
+    "0",
+    "(-0)",
+    "1",
+    "0.79",
+    "(-0.79)",
+    "4294967295",
+    "4294967296",
+    "(-4294967295)",
+    "(-4294967296)",
+    "9999999999999",
+    "(-9999999999999)",
+    "1.5e10",
+    "(-1.5e10)",
+    "0xFFF",
+    "(-0xFFF)",
+    "NaN",
+    "Infinity",
+    "(-Infinity)"
+]
+
+function sub_strong(x, y) {
+  "use strong";
+  let v = x - y;
+  return v;

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

why not just `return x - y`?

Is this to prevent inlining?

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

there's no particular reason for it, will change in followup

+}
+
+function mul_strong(x, y) {
+  "use strong";
+  let v = x * y;
+  return v;
+}
+
+function div_strong(x, y) {
+  "use strong";
+  let v = x / y;
+  return v;
+}
+
+function mod_strong(x, y) {
+  "use strong";
+  let v = x % y;
+  return v;
+}
+
+let strong_funcs = [sub_strong, mul_strong, div_strong, mod_strong];
+
+function inline_sub_strong(x, y) {
+  "use strong";
+  let v = x - y;
+  return v;
+}
+
+function inline_outer(x, y) {
+  return inline_sub_strong(x, y);
+}
+
+function inline_sub(x, y) {
+  let v = x - y;
+  return v;
+}
+
+function inline_outer_strong(x, y) {
+  "use strong";
+  return inline_sub(x, y);
+}
+
+for (let op of strong_arith) {
+  for (let left of number_values) {
+    for (let right of number_values) {
+      let expr = "(" + left + op + right + ")";
+      assertEquals(eval(expr), eval("'use strong';" + expr));
+      assertDoesNotThrow("'use strong'; " + expr + ";");
+      assertDoesNotThrow("'use strong'; let v = " + expr + ";");
+    }
+  }
+  for (let left of number_values) {
+    for (let right of nonnumber_values) {
+      let expr = "(" + left + op + right + ")";
+      assertDoesNotThrow("'use strict'; " + expr + ";");
+      assertDoesNotThrow("'use strict'; let v = " + expr + ";");
+      assertThrows("'use strong'; " + expr + ";", TypeError);
+      assertThrows("'use strong'; let v = " + expr + ";", TypeError);

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

These things might be easier to read with template literals?

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

Probably. It doesn't sound like a bad idea for me to change the strong tests
built like this to use template literals sometime. There are a decent number.

+    }
+  }
+  for (let left of nonnumber_values) {
+    for (let right of number_values.concat(nonnumber_values)) {
+      let expr = "(" + left + op + right + ")";
+      assertDoesNotThrow("'use strict'; " + expr + ";");
+      assertDoesNotThrow("'use strict'; let v = " + expr + ";");
+      assertThrows("'use strong'; " + expr + ";", TypeError);
+      assertThrows("'use strong'; let v = " + expr + ";", TypeError);
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+for (let func of strong_funcs) {
+  let a = func(4, 5);
+  let b = func(4, 5);
+  assertTrue(a === b);
+  %OptimizeFunctionOnNextCall(func);
+  let c = func(4, 5);
+  assertOptimized(func);
+  assertTrue(b === c);
+  %DeoptimizeFunction(func);
+  let d = func(4, 5);
+  assertTrue(c === d);
+  %DeoptimizeFunction(func);
+  %ClearFunctionTypeFeedback(func);
+}
+
+for (let func of strong_funcs) {
+  try {
+    let a = func(2, 3);
+    let b = func(2, 3);
+    assertTrue(a === b);
+    %OptimizeFunctionOnNextCall(func);
+    let c = func(2, "foo");
+    assertUnreachable();
+  } catch(e) {

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

catch (e)

Just like if, for etc

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

followup

+    assertTrue(e instanceof TypeError);

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015/04/24 14:14:23]

or assertInstanceof

[conradw, 2015/04/24 14:42:32]

followup

+    assertUnoptimized(func);
+    assertThrows(function(){func(2, "foo");}, TypeError);
+    assertDoesNotThrow(function(){func(2, 3);});
+  }
+}
+
+assertThrows(function(){inline_outer(1, {})}, TypeError);
+for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
+  inline_outer(1, 2);
+}
+assertThrows(function(){inline_outer(1, {})}, TypeError);
+
+assertDoesNotThrow(function(){inline_outer_strong(1, {})});
+for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
+  inline_outer_strong(1, 2);
+}
+assertDoesNotThrow(function(){inline_outer_strong(1, {})});