add uncached Function::New

add uncached Function::New

R=mstarzinger@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=16584

[Michael Starzinger, 2013-09-06 14:41:50]

LGTM with nits.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23561007/diff/1/include/v8.h
File include/v8.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23561007/diff/1/include/v8.h#newcode2372
include/v8.h:2372: // Create a function in the current execution context
nit: Doxygen comment style.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23561007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.cc
File test/cctest/test-api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23561007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.cc#newco...
test/cctest/test-api.cc:20523: #endif  // V8_OS_POSIX
I think this #endif was already misplaced before.

[yhirano, 2013-09-06 15:39:12]

Thank you very much.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23561007/diff/1/src/apinatives.js
File src/apinatives.js (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23561007/diff/1/src/apinatives.js#newc...
src/apinatives.js:40: var kApiFunctionCache = new InternalArray();
I think we should use Object here because serial_number can grow to a very large
number by repetitive Function::New calls.

[dcarney, 2013-09-06 17:59:49]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23561007/diff/1/src/apinatives.js
File src/apinatives.js (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23561007/diff/1/src/apinatives.js#newc...
src/apinatives.js:40: var kApiFunctionCache = new InternalArray();
On 2013/09/06 15:39:12, yhirano wrote:
> I think we should use Object here because serial_number can grow to a very
large
> number by repetitive Function::New calls.

okay, i can just set the serial_number for objects that aren't going to be
cached to be 0 or -1 or something, then we won't have a problem

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23561007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.cc
File test/cctest/test-api.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23561007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.c...
test/cctest/test-api.cc:20523: #endif  // V8_OS_POSIX
On 2013/09/06 14:41:50, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> I think this #endif was already misplaced before.

when i see a 20,000 line file, I just stick new code at the bottom, and 90% I'm
right

[dcarney, 2013-09-09 07:08:48]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r16584 (presubmit successful).