Create function name const assignment after parsing language mode.

Create function name const assignment after parsing language mode.

Otherwise we may choose sloppy const or strict const depending on
whether the function is parsed the first time.

R=mvstanton@chromium.org
BUG=v8:4336
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/f7d808847feaa87f1635dd64650790d8b0d42021
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#29966}

[mvstanton, 2015-07-31 09:56:26]

Just one comment, and Andreas should generally agree that it's a sane idea :)

LGTM.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/1/src/parser.cc
File src/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/1/src/parser.cc#newcode4446
src/parser.cc:4446: result->Set(0, factory()->NewExpressionStatement(
Could you define this reserved spot as a constant index at line 4328, like:
const int functionNameStatementIndex = 0;

and use that in the Set() statement instead of 0.

[Yang, 2015-07-31 10:26:20]

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

[Yang, 2015-07-31 10:26:20]

Fixed nit. Andreas, do you have any comments?

[Yang, 2015-07-31 10:47:00]

The CQ bit was checked by yangguo@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-31 10:47:13]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1260053004/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1260053004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-31 11:11:25]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-31 11:11:26]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Yang, 2015-08-03 08:48:33]

The CQ bit was checked by yangguo@chromium.org

[Yang, 2015-08-03 08:48:33]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
mvstanton@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/#ps20001
(title: "replace 0 by constant")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-03 08:48:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1260053004/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1260053004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-03 09:14:25]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-03 09:14:34]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/f7d808847feaa87f1635dd64650790d8b0d42021
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#29966}

[rossberg, 2015-08-04 09:47:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/20001/src/parser.cc
File src/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/20001/src/parser.cc#newcode4436
src/parser.cc:4436: VariableMode fvar_mode = use_strict_const ? CONST :
CONST_LEGACY;
Wait, I thought the idea was that this should always be CONST. In which case you
don't need to bother deferring the creation of the declaration.

[adamk, 2015-10-09 22:24:28]

On 2015/08/04 09:47:36, rossberg wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/20001/src/parser.cc
> File src/parser.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/20001/src/parser.cc#newcode4436
> src/parser.cc:4436: VariableMode fvar_mode = use_strict_const ? CONST :
> CONST_LEGACY;
> Wait, I thought the idea was that this should always be CONST. In which case
you
> don't need to bother deferring the creation of the declaration.

Did this question get resolved? I happened to be looking at this code today and
found it very strange-looking. Anything that'd make it less strange seems like
it'd be nice.

[adamk, 2015-10-09 23:11:41]

On 2015/10/09 22:24:28, adamk wrote:
> On 2015/08/04 09:47:36, rossberg wrote:
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/20001/src/parser.cc
> > File src/parser.cc (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1260053004/diff/20001/src/parser.cc#newcode4436
> > src/parser.cc:4436: VariableMode fvar_mode = use_strict_const ? CONST :
> > CONST_LEGACY;
> > Wait, I thought the idea was that this should always be CONST. In which case
> you
> > don't need to bother deferring the creation of the declaration.
> 
> Did this question get resolved? I happened to be looking at this code today
and
> found it very strange-looking. Anything that'd make it less strange seems like
> it'd be nice.

Actually, I resolved it myself. Even in ES6, this needs CONST_LEGACY-like
behavior, see https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=4482