[Turbofan] Fix CallSuper argument order in BytecodeGraphBuilder.

[Turbofan] Fix CallSuper argument order in BytecodeGraphBuilder.

The constructor and new.target arguments were passed to CallConstruct in
the wrong order by BytecodeGraphBuilder, which caused subclassing to be
incorrect when optimizing from bytecode.

Also clean up some unecessary functions in interpreter.cc found while
figuring this out.

BUG=chromium:642409
Committed: https://crrev.com/c95025601330103a1caa500c83cad956d71e0ca2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39204}

[rmcilroy, 2016-09-06 10:28:06]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 10:28:14]

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, 2016-09-06 10:51:38]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 10:51:38]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[rmcilroy, 2016-09-06 11:00:10]

rmcilroy@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ mstarzinger@chromium.org

[rmcilroy, 2016-09-06 11:00:11]

Michi, PTAL, thanks.

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-09-06 11:11:22]

LGTM on the fix, just comments on the regression test.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2312103002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
File test/mjsunit/regress/regress-642409.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2312103002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
test/mjsunit/regress/regress-642409.js:17: for (var i=0; i<50000; i++) {
I assume this loop is here to trigger optimization. Can we instead formulate
this explicitly with runtime helpers to reduce runtime of the test?

[rmcilroy, 2016-09-06 11:27:21]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2312103002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
File test/mjsunit/regress/regress-642409.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2312103002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regres...
test/mjsunit/regress/regress-642409.js:17: for (var i=0; i<50000; i++) {
On 2016/09/06 11:11:22, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> I assume this loop is here to trigger optimization. Can we instead formulate
> this explicitly with runtime helpers to reduce runtime of the test? 

Good point, done.

[rmcilroy, 2016-09-06 11:27:26]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org

[rmcilroy, 2016-09-06 11:27:27]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
mstarzinger@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2312103002/#ps20001
(title: "Shorten test")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 11:27:35]

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, 2016-09-06 11:53:10]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 11:53:24]

Description was changed from

==========
[Turbofan] Fix CallSuper argument order in BytecodeGraphBuilder.

The constructor and new.target arguments were passed to CallConstruct in
the wrong order by BytecodeGraphBuilder, which caused subclassing to be
incorrect when optimizing from bytecode.

Also clean up some unecessary functions in interpreter.cc found while
figuring this out.

BUG=chromium:642409
==========

to

==========
[Turbofan] Fix CallSuper argument order in BytecodeGraphBuilder.

The constructor and new.target arguments were passed to CallConstruct in
the wrong order by BytecodeGraphBuilder, which caused subclassing to be
incorrect when optimizing from bytecode.

Also clean up some unecessary functions in interpreter.cc found while
figuring this out.

BUG=chromium:642409

Committed: https://crrev.com/c95025601330103a1caa500c83cad956d71e0ca2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39204}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 11:53:25]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/c95025601330103a1caa500c83cad956d71e0ca2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#39204}