Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Reland - Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Committed: https://crrev.com/7a38b927c89f54d27ee0ce5c297f06b9b655373b
Cr-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39230}

[lpy, 2016-08-29 22:11:58]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 22:12:05]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 22:36:31]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-29 22:36:31]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[lpy, 2016-08-29 22:39:47]

lpy@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ adamk@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-08-29 22:39:47]

PTAL.

[adamk, 2016-08-30 20:45:57]

Do you understand why the bytecode golden files changed so much? Is it just
because of the different declaration order?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/ast/scopes.cc
File src/ast/scopes.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/ast/scopes.cc#newcode444
src/ast/scopes.cc:444: if (arg_variable != NULL &&
IsLexicalVariableMode(arg_variable->mode())) {
Please add a comment here explaining what you're doing. You could refer to the
spec, since the spec in
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-functiondeclarationinstantiation does this
exact check.

Also style nit: please use nullptr instead of NULL in new code.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/ast/scopes.cc#newcode451
src/ast/scopes.cc:451: arguments_ = Declare(zone(), this,
ast_value_factory->arguments_string(), VAR,
I think you only need to do this if arg_variable == nullptr (otherwise
arg_variable is the same Variable* that Declare will return).

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc
File src/parsing/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc#newco...
src/parsing/parser.cc:4024: main_scope->DeclareArguments(ast_value_factory());
What happens if you leave this out? I'm a bit surprised it's necessary.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
File test/mjsunit/regress/regress-4577.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
test/mjsunit/regress/regress-4577.js:19: assertTrue(foo() === 2);
assertEquals(2, foo());

[lpy, 2016-09-01 01:16:45]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 01:16:47]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[lpy, 2016-09-01 01:17:30]

PTAL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/ast/scopes.cc
File src/ast/scopes.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/ast/scopes.cc#newcode444
src/ast/scopes.cc:444: if (arg_variable != NULL &&
IsLexicalVariableMode(arg_variable->mode())) {
On 2016/08/30 20:45:56, adamk wrote:
> Please add a comment here explaining what you're doing. You could refer to the
> spec, since the spec in
> https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-functiondeclarationinstantiation does this
> exact check.
> 
> Also style nit: please use nullptr instead of NULL in new code.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/ast/scopes.cc#newcode451
src/ast/scopes.cc:451: arguments_ = Declare(zone(), this,
ast_value_factory->arguments_string(), VAR,
On 2016/08/30 20:45:56, adamk wrote:
> I think you only need to do this if arg_variable == nullptr (otherwise
> arg_variable is the same Variable* that Declare will return).

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc
File src/parsing/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc#newco...
src/parsing/parser.cc:4024: main_scope->DeclareArguments(ast_value_factory());
On 2016/08/30 20:45:56, adamk wrote:
> What happens if you leave this out? I'm a bit surprised it's necessary.

There's a DCHECK here:
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/v8/src/ast/scopes.cc?l=1027

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
File test/mjsunit/regress/regress-4577.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
test/mjsunit/regress/regress-4577.js:19: assertTrue(foo() === 2);
On 2016/08/30 20:45:57, adamk wrote:
> assertEquals(2, foo());

Done.

[lpy, 2016-09-01 01:19:19]

Description was changed from

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N
==========

to

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N
==========

[lpy, 2016-09-01 01:19:19]

lpy@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ mythria@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-09-01 01:20:12]

Also + mythria@, could you please take a look at bytecode_expectations/?

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 01:20:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 01:20:17]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_presubmit on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_presubmit/builds/22986)

[mythria, 2016-09-01 09:44:28]

Most changes in bytecode expectations are because of the change in feedback
slots. I think Arguments are processed in a different order, so the feedback
slot gets assigned in a different order.

lgtm on bytecode expectations with a minor comment.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/interpreter...
File test/cctest/interpreter/bytecode_expectations/ContextVariables.golden
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/interpreter...
test/cctest/interpreter/bytecode_expectations/ContextVariables.golden:386: var
a248 = 0;
I think this is testing if we generate wide bytecode for LdaContextSlot. So we
can add another variable declaration to actually test this case. So, just add 
"var a249 = 0;" here.

We also need to update test/cctest/interpreter/test-bytecode-generator.cc in
function ContextVariables change REPEAT_249_UNIQUE_VARS() to
REPEAT_250_UNIQUE_VARS() and update the definition at the top of file by adding
one more UNIQUE_VAR. i.e. change it to:

#define REPEAT_250_UNIQUE_VARS() \
  REPEAT_128_UNIQUE_VARS()       \
  REPEAT_64_UNIQUE_VARS()        \
  REPEAT_32_UNIQUE_VARS()        \
  REPEAT_16_UNIQUE_VARS()        \
  REPEAT_8_UNIQUE_VARS()         \
  UNIQUE_VAR()                   \
  UNIQUE_VAR()

We need to rebaseline after doing this change. Thanks a lot for doing this.

[adamk, 2016-09-01 17:36:26]

Just a few more bits.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc
File src/ast/scopes.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc#newco...
src/ast/scopes.cc:445: // See
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-functiondeclarationinstantiation,
The style we've mostly been going for here has been to reduce the entire part of
the URL before the "#" to "ES", e.g.,

"See ES#some-section-anchor, step 20"

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc#newco...
src/ast/scopes.cc:1501: // Functions have 'arguments' declared implicitly in all
non arrow functions.
This comment is now wrong, I think it should just be removed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc#newco...
src/ast/scopes.cc:1503: // 'arguments' is used. Unless there is also a parameter
called
Can you add a DCHECK(!is_arrow_scope()) right above this line?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:8200: "const arguments",
This one needs an initializer, as the test failure demonstrates.

[lpy, 2016-09-01 19:17:04]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 19:17:11]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 19:23:21]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 19:23:22]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_presubmit on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_presubmit/builds/23114)

[lpy, 2016-09-01 20:00:55]

Thanks for the feedback, I updated the CL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc
File src/ast/scopes.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc#newco...
src/ast/scopes.cc:445: // See
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-functiondeclarationinstantiation,
On 2016/09/01 17:36:26, adamk wrote:
> The style we've mostly been going for here has been to reduce the entire part
of
> the URL before the "#" to "ES", e.g.,
> 
> "See ES#some-section-anchor, step 20"

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc#newco...
src/ast/scopes.cc:1501: // Functions have 'arguments' declared implicitly in all
non arrow functions.
On 2016/09/01 17:36:26, adamk wrote:
> This comment is now wrong, I think it should just be removed.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/src/ast/scopes.cc#newco...
src/ast/scopes.cc:1503: // 'arguments' is used. Unless there is also a parameter
called
On 2016/09/01 17:36:26, adamk wrote:
> Can you add a DCHECK(!is_arrow_scope()) right above this line?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/interpreter...
File test/cctest/interpreter/bytecode_expectations/ContextVariables.golden
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/interpreter...
test/cctest/interpreter/bytecode_expectations/ContextVariables.golden:386: var
a248 = 0;
On 2016/09/01 09:44:28, mythria wrote:
> I think this is testing if we generate wide bytecode for LdaContextSlot. So we
> can add another variable declaration to actually test this case. So, just add 
> "var a249 = 0;" here.
> 
> We also need to update test/cctest/interpreter/test-bytecode-generator.cc in
> function ContextVariables change REPEAT_249_UNIQUE_VARS() to
> REPEAT_250_UNIQUE_VARS() and update the definition at the top of file by
adding
> one more UNIQUE_VAR. i.e. change it to:
> 
> #define REPEAT_250_UNIQUE_VARS() \
>   REPEAT_128_UNIQUE_VARS()       \
>   REPEAT_64_UNIQUE_VARS()        \
>   REPEAT_32_UNIQUE_VARS()        \
>   REPEAT_16_UNIQUE_VARS()        \
>   REPEAT_8_UNIQUE_VARS()         \
>   UNIQUE_VAR()                   \
>   UNIQUE_VAR()
> 
> We need to rebaseline after doing this change. Thanks a lot for doing this. 

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/20001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:8200: "const arguments",
On 2016/09/01 17:36:26, adamk wrote:
> This one needs an initializer, as the test failure demonstrates.

Done.

[adamk, 2016-09-01 20:09:26]

lgtm once unused macro is removed

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/40001/test/cctest/interpreter...
File test/cctest/interpreter/test-bytecode-generator.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/40001/test/cctest/interpreter...
test/cctest/interpreter/test-bytecode-generator.cc:59: #define
REPEAT_249_UNIQUE_VARS() \
Doesn't look like this is used anymore.

[lpy, 2016-09-01 20:39:54]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 20:40:06]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 20:43:53]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 20:43:54]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_presubmit on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_presubmit/builds/23121)

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:14:23]

The CQ bit was checked by lpy@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:14:23]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
mythria@chromium.org, adamk@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/#ps60001
(title: "update")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 21:14:35]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 21:18:42]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 21:18:43]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_presubmit on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_presubmit/builds/23122)

[adamk, 2016-09-01 21:21:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/60001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/60001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:8324: const char* context_data[][2] = {
To make clang-format happy you'll want to wrap these blocks with "//
clang-format off" and "// clang-format on" (we really want these to be
one-item-per-line.

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:23:58]

yeah, I updated a new one for it, thanks.

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:37:37]

The CQ bit was checked by lpy@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:37:37]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from adamk@chromium.org,
mythria@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/#ps80001
(title: "clang format")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 21:37:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[adamk, 2016-09-01 21:37:59]

lgtm with one more clang-format nit

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/60001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/60001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:8324: const char* context_data[][2] = {
On 2016/09/01 21:21:30, adamk wrote:
> To make clang-format happy you'll want to wrap these blocks with "//
> clang-format off" and "// clang-format on" (we really want these to be
> one-item-per-line.

Sorry to send this back one more time, but generally we wrap only the blocks of
data with the clang-format tags, not the entire TEST case (this lets
clang-format do, e.g., line-wrapping where appropriate).

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:39:06]

The CQ bit was unchecked by lpy@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:46:31]

Patchset #5 (id:80001) has been deleted

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:46:39]

The CQ bit was checked by lpy@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:46:39]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from adamk@chromium.org,
mythria@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/#ps100001
(title: "clang format")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 21:46:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[lpy, 2016-09-01 21:47:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/60001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2290753003/diff/60001/test/cctest/test-parsin...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:8324: const char* context_data[][2] = {
On 2016/09/01 21:37:59, adamk wrote:
> On 2016/09/01 21:21:30, adamk wrote:
> > To make clang-format happy you'll want to wrap these blocks with "//
> > clang-format off" and "// clang-format on" (we really want these to be
> > one-item-per-line.
> 
> Sorry to send this back one more time, but generally we wrap only the blocks
of
> data with the clang-format tags, not the entire TEST case (this lets
> clang-format do, e.g., line-wrapping where appropriate).

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 22:09:39]

Description was changed from

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N
==========

to

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 22:09:41]

Committed patchset #5 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 22:10:46]

Description was changed from

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N
==========

to

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-01 22:10:48]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}

[Michael Achenbach, 2016-09-02 06:22:54]

A revert of this CL (patchset #5 id:100001) has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/2304853002/ by machenbach@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: Breaks layout tests:
https://build.chromium.org/p/client.v8.fyi/builders/V8-Blink%20Linux%2064/bui....

[lpy, 2016-09-02 19:48:39]

Description was changed from

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

to

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

[lpy, 2016-09-07 06:24:07]

The CQ bit was checked by lpy@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 06:24:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[lpy, 2016-09-07 06:24:34]

The CQ bit was unchecked by lpy@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-09-07 06:24:39]

The CQ bit was unchecked by lpy@chromium.org

[lpy, 2016-09-07 06:24:54]

Description was changed from

==========
Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

to

==========
Reland - Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

[lpy, 2016-09-07 06:25:01]

The CQ bit was checked by lpy@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 06:25:08]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 06:54:45]

Description was changed from

==========
Reland - Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

to

==========
Reland - Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 06:54:46]

Committed patchset #5 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 06:54:58]

Description was changed from

==========
Reland - Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
==========

to

==========
Reland - Allow lexically declared "arguments" in function scope in sloppy mode.

Lexically declared "arguments" in sloppy mode will throw redeclaration error
currently, this patch fixes it by delaying the declaration of arguments until we
fully parse parameter list and function body.

BUG=v8:4577
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/70a613dd0a5f5d205b46559b55702764464851fa
Committed: https://crrev.com/7a38b927c89f54d27ee0ce5c297f06b9b655373b
Cr-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39109}
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39230}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-07 06:54:59]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/7a38b927c89f54d27ee0ce5c297f06b9b655373b
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39230}