[es8] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

[es8] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y

Committed: https://crrev.com/ea2fbb7620bdd48ef53196b2dbc79554bb48389a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35799}

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 14:21:43]

Description was changed from

==========
[es7] First set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y
==========

to

==========
[es7] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y
==========

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 14:28:24]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 14:30:37]

Patchset #1 (id:20001) has been deleted

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 14:31:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 14:31:12]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1917993004/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1917993004/40001

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 14:31:14]

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

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 14:31:15]

PTAL

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 14:55:33]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 14:55:34]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[rossberg, 2016-04-26 14:56:58]

I think this is good as a first step. We can do proper parsing of continue
expressions in a follow-up.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser-base.h
File src/parsing/parser-base.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser-base...
src/parsing/parser-base.h:2930: if (is_tail_call_expression) {
Nit: why separate this from the rest of the logic?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser.cc
File src/parsing/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser.cc#n...
src/parsing/parser.cc:2640: // ES7 XX.YY.ZZ
It's gonna be ES8. ;)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser.cc#n...
src/parsing/parser.cc:2981: if (FLAG_harmony_explicit_tailcalls &&
How come you only need to do something here for the syntactic version? Where is
the corresponding filtering happening for the non-syntactic semantics?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/preparser.cc
File src/parsing/preparser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/preparser.c...
src/parsing/preparser.cc:993: if (FLAG_harmony_explicit_tailcalls &&
catch_block_exists &&
Same question here, where is the corresponding logic for implicit tail calls?

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 16:46:25]

Description was changed from

==========
[es7] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y
==========

to

==========
[es8] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y
==========

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 16:48:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser-base.h
File src/parsing/parser-base.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser-base...
src/parsing/parser-base.h:2930: if (is_tail_call_expression) {
On 2016/04/26 14:56:57, rossberg wrote:
> Nit: why separate this from the rest of the logic?

I'll address this in a follow-up CL when I introduce ParseTailCallExpression.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser.cc
File src/parsing/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser.cc#n...
src/parsing/parser.cc:2640: // ES7 XX.YY.ZZ
On 2016/04/26 14:56:57, rossberg wrote:
> It's gonna be ES8. ;)

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/parser.cc#n...
src/parsing/parser.cc:2981: if (FLAG_harmony_explicit_tailcalls &&
On 2016/04/26 14:56:57, rossberg wrote:
> How come you only need to do something here for the syntactic version? Where
is
> the corresponding filtering happening for the non-syntactic semantics?

We collect expressions in tail position to the
expressions_in_tail_position_in_catch_block list. In case of implicit tail calls
if we have a try-catch we append collected expressions to current list (see line
2973), in case of try-catch-finally we silently throw this list away. However in
case of STC and try-catch-finally we have to report syntax error for the
expressions collected in expressions_in_tail_position_in_catch_block list.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/preparser.cc
File src/parsing/preparser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1917993004/diff/40001/src/parsing/preparser.c...
src/parsing/preparser.cc:993: if (FLAG_harmony_explicit_tailcalls &&
catch_block_exists &&
On 2016/04/26 14:56:57, rossberg wrote:
> Same question here, where is the corresponding logic for implicit tail calls?

Implicit tail calls does not produce any errors, therefore there was no code in
the preparser at all. However in case of STC we have to report syntax errors for
tail call expression in wrong places.

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 16:48:28]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 16:48:42]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1917993004/60001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1917993004/60001

[rossberg, 2016-04-26 16:51:48]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 17:27:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 17:27:17]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-04-26 17:27:59]

The CQ bit was checked by ishell@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 17:28:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1917993004/60001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1917993004/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 17:30:26]

Description was changed from

==========
[es8] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y
==========

to

==========
[es8] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 17:30:27]

Committed patchset #2 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 17:31:34]

Description was changed from

==========
[es8] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y
==========

to

==========
[es8] Initial set of changes to support syntactic tail calls.

The syntax is "return continue expr;".

BUG=v8:4915
LOG=Y

Committed: https://crrev.com/ea2fbb7620bdd48ef53196b2dbc79554bb48389a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35799}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-26 17:31:35]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/ea2fbb7620bdd48ef53196b2dbc79554bb48389a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35799}