Allow to neuter array buffer twice in tests.

Allow to neuter array buffer twice in tests.

R=jarin@chromium.org

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=20241

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-03-25 10:36:57]

PTAL

[Jarin, 2014-03-25 10:59:42]

lgtm, one small nit

https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc
File src/runtime.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode917
src/runtime.cc:917: }
How about keeping just one return statement? That is, saying something like:

RUNTIME_FUNCTION(MaybeObject*, Runtime_ArrayBufferNeuter) {
  ...
  if (array_buffer->backing_store() != NULL) {
    ... do the neutering...
  }
  CHECK(Smi::FromInt(0) == array_buffer->byte_length());
  return isolate->heap()->undefined_value();
}

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-03-25 11:04:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc
File src/runtime.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode917
src/runtime.cc:917: }
On 2014/03/25 10:59:42, jarin wrote:
> How about keeping just one return statement? That is, saying something like:
> 
> RUNTIME_FUNCTION(MaybeObject*, Runtime_ArrayBufferNeuter) {
>   ...
>   if (array_buffer->backing_store() != NULL) {
>     ... do the neutering...
>   }
>   CHECK(Smi::FromInt(0) == array_buffer->byte_length());
>   return isolate->heap()->undefined_value();
> }

I think that complicates code for the edge case.

[Sven Panne, 2014-03-25 11:30:35]

DBC

https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc
File src/runtime.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode917
src/runtime.cc:917: }
Actually I like the initial version, too, a "comb-like" pattern is very easy to
read:

void foo() {
   if (special_condition1) return val1;
   if (special_condition2) return val2;
   <compute normal case>
   return normal_case_val;
}

see http://refactoring.com/catalog/replaceNestedConditionalWithGuardClauses.html

[Jarin, 2014-03-25 11:44:41]

I am fine either way, it was just a question.

On 2014/03/25 11:30:35, Sven Panne wrote:
> DBC
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc
> File src/runtime.cc (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/209083005/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode917
> src/runtime.cc:917: }
> Actually I like the initial version, too, a "comb-like" pattern is very easy
to
> read:
> 
> void foo() {
>    if (special_condition1) return val1;
>    if (special_condition2) return val2;
>    <compute normal case>
>    return normal_case_val;
> }
> 
> see
http://refactoring.com/catalog/replaceNestedConditionalWithGuardClauses.html

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-03-25 12:55:19]

Committed patchset #1 manually as r20241 (presubmit successful).