Added constructor call on object in InstantiateObject method

Added constructor call on object in InstantiateObject method

I found after upgrading from 4.2.2 where apinatives.js still
existed to 4.4.56 where everything had been converted to C++ in
api-natives.cc, my constructors for ObjectTemplate instantiated objects
were no longer being called.  After investigation, I noticed in
apinatives.js that a new call would handle that, but there was no
corresponding constructor call in api-natives.cc (or anywhere else
along the chain of InstantiateObject), so I added a call to
Execution::Call to actually construct the object.  Forgive me if that
isn't the right place to add it (InitializeBody in objects-inl.h also
looked like a good place), or if there's a reason constructors are
not being called.

I also added myself to the AUTHORS file in this CL.

Committed: https://crrev.com/e61a957b2a9726294cdd2802a6a2b6e3a9ef657d
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#29076}

[dtalley, 2015-05-18 13:58:12]

Added a Check() call after Execution::Call to fix the build errors (hopefully)

[dtalley, 2015-05-19 15:07:23]

I'm not sure how that layout test failure relates to my patch.  Looking back
through that test's history, that specific test
(create-element-after-stack-overflow) has never been run before on any patch but
mine, and according to the test's body, it should pass if it doesn't crash,
which it isn't, but the pass/fail condition is whether the actual output matches
the expected, and looking through the source I don't even see how the missing
expected line could be produced.

[Sven Panne, 2015-05-28 12:51:03]

svenpanne@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ verwaest@chromium.org
- dcarney@chromium.org

[Sven Panne, 2015-05-28 12:51:04]

Hmmm, this really looks like an omission on the C++ side, but I'm not 100% sure.
@Toon: Could you have a look, please?

Another thing is the ".Check()" part: I don't think that crashing is an option
here, returning e.g. MaybeHandle<JSObject>() is probably better.

Regarding the failure on the v8_linux_layout_dbg bot: Just ignore it, it's very
probably something unrelated.

[dtalley, 2015-05-28 16:48:30]

On 2015/05/28 12:51:04, Sven Panne wrote:
> Hmmm, this really looks like an omission on the C++ side, but I'm not 100%
sure.
> @Toon: Could you have a look, please?
> 
> Another thing is the ".Check()" part: I don't think that crashing is an option
> here, returning e.g. MaybeHandle<JSObject>() is probably better.
> 
> Regarding the failure on the v8_linux_layout_dbg bot: Just ignore it, it's
very
> probably something unrelated.

I replaced the .Check() part with a RETURN_ON_EXCEPTION which I've seen in
other parts of the code base where Execution::Call is used, but you
guys would know better about an actual fix for this, so I leave it up to
you. :)

[dtalley, 2015-06-15 20:23:54]

On 2015/05/28 16:48:30, dtalley wrote:
> On 2015/05/28 12:51:04, Sven Panne wrote:
> > Hmmm, this really looks like an omission on the C++ side, but I'm not 100%
> sure.
> > @Toon: Could you have a look, please?
> > 
> > Another thing is the ".Check()" part: I don't think that crashing is an
option
> > here, returning e.g. MaybeHandle<JSObject>() is probably better.
> > 
> > Regarding the failure on the v8_linux_layout_dbg bot: Just ignore it, it's
> very
> > probably something unrelated.
> 
> I replaced the .Check() part with a RETURN_ON_EXCEPTION which I've seen in
> other parts of the code base where Execution::Call is used, but you
> guys would know better about an actual fix for this, so I leave it up to
> you. :)

Has anyone had a chance to look over this yet?

[Toon Verwaest, 2015-06-17 09:58:48]

Sorry, I've been OOO for 2 weeks.
LGTM, thanks for fixing this.

[Toon Verwaest, 2015-06-17 10:01:15]

The CQ bit was checked by verwaest@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-17 10:01:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1137693003/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-17 10:24:08]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-17 10:24:20]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/e61a957b2a9726294cdd2802a6a2b6e3a9ef657d
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#29076}

[Michael Achenbach, 2015-06-17 12:20:30]

A revert of this CL (patchset #5 id:80001) has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/1188233002/ by machenbach@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: [Sheriff] This breaks layout test expectations:
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.v8.fyi/builders/V8-Blink%20Linux%2032/buil...

See:
https://storage.googleapis.com/chromium-layout-test-archives/V8-Blink_Linux_3...

Please land a needsmanualrebaseline change on the blink-side before relanding
this, if the change was intended.

Please include a blink trybot on relanding this..

[dtalley, 2015-06-22 06:27:01]

On 2015/06/17 12:20:30, Michael Achenbach wrote:
> A revert of this CL (patchset #5 id:80001) has been created in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1188233002/ by mailto:machenbach@chromium.org.
> 
> The reason for reverting is: [Sheriff] This breaks layout test expectations:
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.v8.fyi/builders/V8-Blink%20Linux%2032/buil...
> 
> See:
>
https://storage.googleapis.com/chromium-layout-test-archives/V8-Blink_Linux_3...
> 
> Please land a needsmanualrebaseline change on the blink-side before relanding
> this, if the change was intended.
> 
> Please include a blink trybot on relanding this..

I don't think the failed layout test is relevant to the change, and in fact I
still think that particular test is incorrectly testing for pass or fail.