[strong] create strong array literals

[strong] create strong array literals

Copied, with permission, from https://codereview.chromium.org/1151853003/

Initial patch set is an unmodified copy, rebased on top of related fixes from
https://codereview.chromium.org/1158933002/

Subsequent patch sets contain fixes for remaining bugs in the CL.

BUG=v8:3956
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/3f5cd321f14fa15e80b71b6f79022d736680ba5a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#28760}

[conradw, 2015-05-28 14:11:05]

conradw@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ arv@chromium.org, dslomov@chromium.org, rossberg@chromium.org

[conradw, 2015-05-28 14:11:05]

PTAL

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2015-05-28 16:11:45]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/globals.h
File src/globals.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/globals.h#newcode230
src/globals.h:230: FIRM  // strong object
Why not STRONG?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/isolate.h
File src/isolate.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/isolate.h#newcode993
src/isolate.h:993: Map* get_initial_js_array_map(ElementsKind kind, bool
is_strong = false);
Maybe use the enum here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
File test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js:285: class F extends null {};
same here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
File test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js:287: // class F extends null {};
Because new fails. Maybe just do a different assertion for these?

[conradw, 2015-05-29 11:38:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/globals.h
File src/globals.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/globals.h#newcode230
src/globals.h:230: FIRM  // strong object
On 2015/05/28 16:11:44, arv wrote:
> Why not STRONG?

This was Andreas' decision. I assume it's to avoid name clashes with the
LanguageMode enum.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/isolate.h
File src/isolate.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/src/isolate.h#newcode993
src/isolate.h:993: Map* get_initial_js_array_map(ElementsKind kind, bool
is_strong = false);
On 2015/05/28 16:11:45, arv wrote:
> Maybe use the enum here?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
File test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js:285: class F extends null {};
On 2015/05/28 16:11:45, arv wrote:
> same here?

The fact that these were removed instead of commented out makes me wonder if
there's a strong mode restriction in play here that I'm not appreciating. I'll
hold off on committing this until Andreas comes back on Monday.

[rossberg, 2015-06-01 11:31:24]

Thanks for finalising the CL!

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
File test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/strong/lit...
test/mjsunit/strong/literals.js:285: class F extends null {};
On 2015/05/29 11:38:30, conradw wrote:
> On 2015/05/28 16:11:45, arv wrote:
> > same here?
> 
> The fact that these were removed instead of commented out makes me wonder if
> there's a strong mode restriction in play here that I'm not appreciating. I'll
> hold off on committing this until Andreas comes back on Monday.

Yes, I figured that in strong mode we should just throw immediately if an
extends clause evaluates to null (just added that to the spreadsheet), so these
tests no longer make sense. Just forgot to remove them above.

[rossberg, 2015-06-01 11:32:02]

rossberg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ verwaest@chromium.org

[rossberg, 2015-06-01 11:32:16]

rossberg@chromium.org changed required reviewers:
+ rossberg@chromium.org, verwaest@chromium.org

[rossberg, 2015-06-01 11:32:53]

Toon should have a look as well, added him as a reviewer.

[rossberg, 2015-06-02 09:34:45]

rossberg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
- verwaest@chromium.org

[rossberg, 2015-06-02 09:34:45]

rossberg@chromium.org changed required reviewers:
- rossberg@chromium.org, verwaest@chromium.org

[rossberg, 2015-06-02 09:35:21]

On 2015/06/01 11:32:53, rossberg wrote:
> Toon should have a look as well, added him as a reviewer.

Actually, Toon is on sick leave, so we'll have to do without him.

[conradw, 2015-06-02 10:55:00]

The CQ bit was checked by conradw@chromium.org

[conradw, 2015-06-02 10:55:01]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from arv@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1152093003/#ps80001
(title: "cl feedback")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-02 10:55:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1152093003/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-02 11:46:10]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-02 11:46:22]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/3f5cd321f14fa15e80b71b6f79022d736680ba5a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#28760}