Improve chances for inlining of ExceptionState::throwIfNeeded()

Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionState.cpp

Index: Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionState.cpp
diff --git a/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionState.cpp b/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionState.cpp
index 8061edc47843b79bffbca05f9728c8f0258d6925..005668015f43232abd39c8f1dc9972b8b063994e 100644
--- a/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionState.cpp
+++ b/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionState.cpp
@@ -79,6 +79,15 @@ void ExceptionState::setException(v8::Handle<v8::Value> exception)
     m_exception.set(m_isolate, exception);
 }
 
+void ExceptionState::throwException()
+{
+    ASSERT(!m_exception.isEmpty() || m_code);

[haraken, 2014/03/31 12:49:16]

Can this simply be ASSERT(!m_exception.isEmpty()) ?

[fs, 2014/03/31 12:57:00]

AFAIU that would then miss the "m_exception.isEmpty() && m_code" case which
existed previously (and is indicated unlikely to ever occur by the FIXME just
below.)
I'd happily remove it but then I suppose the following two lines
(throwDOMException(...)) should also be removed?

[haraken, 2014/03/31 13:00:05]

I'd just add ASSERT(!m_exception.isEmpty()) and remove the below if branch, but
you can try that in a separate CL.

+    if (m_exception.isEmpty())
+        throwDOMException(m_code, String()); // FIXME: Do we ever hit this? If so, where and why?
+    ASSERT(!m_exception.isEmpty());

[haraken, 2014/03/31 12:49:16]

Then you can remove this.

+    V8ThrowException::throwError(m_exception.newLocal(m_isolate), m_isolate);
+}
+
 void ExceptionState::throwTypeError(const String& message)
 {
     ASSERT(m_isolate);