Remove the 'caller' property from the strict-mode arguments map

test/mjsunit/es6/classes.js

Index: test/mjsunit/es6/classes.js
diff --git a/test/mjsunit/es6/classes.js b/test/mjsunit/es6/classes.js
index fb77dbb8e4b01bb273512b215763dadbb1077661..0261e6e10a78e6d93ce4c1a20ddc3c211c6b1b51 100644
--- a/test/mjsunit/es6/classes.js
+++ b/test/mjsunit/es6/classes.js
@@ -163,15 +163,10 @@
   assertThrows('class C extends function B() { with ({}); return B; }() {}',
                SyntaxError);
 
-  var D = class extends function() {
-    arguments.caller;

[caitp, 2016/10/27 13:31:02]

I don't think we need to remove this line from the base function, the base class
is sloppy. Maybe something interesting would be to assign this value to a
property of `this`, so that you can assert what it is

-  } {};
+  var D = class extends function() {} {};
   assertThrows(function() {
     Object.getPrototypeOf(D).arguments;
   }, TypeError);
-  assertThrows(function() {
-    new D;

[caitp, 2016/10/27 13:31:02]

I don't think this should have ever thrown in the first place, since the
superclass' arguments object should have been sloppy arguments.

Lets change this assertion to be `assertEquals(D.prototype, (new
D()).__proto__)`, which I believe should be correct

[Henrique Ferreiro, 2016/10/28 09:56:05]

The commit message (d5d15253) says: "Classes: Expand test to cover strict
runtime behavior. This tests that the extends expression is treated as strict at
runtime and not just at parse time". This seems to match the standard: "Function
code is strict mode code if the associated FunctionDeclaration, [...] is
contained in strict mode code".

[caitp, 2016/10/28 13:00:02]

sure, but in this file, it occurs in sloppy mode. Otherwise the `with` statement
would be a SyntaxError.

This was apparently testimg that a class which extends a sloppy functionbwould
give that sloppy function a strict arguments object. this is incorrect.

-  }, TypeError);
 })();