Follow-up to r19845 which suppresses syntax errors in presence of a stack overflow.

Follow-up to r19845 which suppresses syntax errors in presence of a stack overflow.

ReportUnexpectedToken already calls Traits::ReportMessageAt. If we're in Parser,
that already suppresses the syntax error. If we're in PreParser, we don't need
to suppress the syntax error (preparser errors don't go through Isolate, and
having both stack overflow and a syntax error present is handled correctly by
PreParserApi::PreParse).

R=mstarzinger@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=19851

[marja, 2014-03-12 13:37:35]

mstarzinger, ptal at this tiny follow-up fix.

[Michael Starzinger, 2014-03-12 13:45:07]

LGTM with one comment.

https://codereview.chromium.org/197293003/diff/20001/src/preparser.h
File src/preparser.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/197293003/diff/20001/src/preparser.h#newcode1019
src/preparser.h:1019: if (stack_overflow()) {
All cases below call through to ReportMessageAt, which already should have the
special handling for stack overflows. Could we completely drop this check here?
Or am I missing something?

[marja, 2014-03-12 13:50:39]

https://codereview.chromium.org/197293003/diff/20001/src/preparser.h
File src/preparser.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/197293003/diff/20001/src/preparser.h#newcode1019
src/preparser.h:1019: if (stack_overflow()) {
On 2014/03/12 13:45:08, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> All cases below call through to ReportMessageAt, which already should have the
> special handling for stack overflows. Could we completely drop this check
here?
> Or am I missing something?

Done; updated description to explain in detail why this is correct.

[marja, 2014-03-12 14:15:19]

Committed patchset #4 manually as r19851 (presubmit successful).