Split parsing of functions and top-level code into two separate methods

Split parsing of functions and top-level code into two separate methods

Also move them to a separate interface header to avoid having to include
parser.h so much

BUG=v8:5589
R=verwaest@chromium.org,marja@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/a1473f5306068840ab32976c477de800df03f274
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41386}

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-11-30 10:52:18]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 10:52:26]

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, 2016-11-30 10:54:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 10:54:17]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_linux64_asan_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux64_asan_rel_ng/buil...)
  v8_linux64_avx2_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux64_avx2_rel_ng/buil...)
  v8_linux64_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux64_rel_ng/builds/17062)
  v8_linux_arm64_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_arm64_rel_ng/build...)
  v8_linux_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_dbg_ng/builds/17116)
  v8_linux_mips64el_compile_rel on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_mips64el_compile_r...)
  v8_linux_nodcheck_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_nodcheck_rel_ng/bu...)
  v8_linux_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_rel_ng/builds/17027)

[marja, 2016-11-30 11:30:30]

Hmm... why do you want to do this? Now several callers need to do the "which
function should we call" dispatch themselves, and there's also a possibility of
calling the wrong one.

A random idea: would it make sense to add a function ParseProgramOrFunction
(urgh, what a name) which does the dispatch for you?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc
File src/parsing/parser.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc#oldco...
src/parsing/parser.cc:3854: if (info->is_toplevel()) {
Could you add DCHECKs into the relevant parse functions that we're using the
right one, like, in ParseProgram info->is_toplevel (or whatever is the right
condition)?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc
File src/parsing/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc#newco...
src/parsing/parser.cc:3833: //
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is now obsolete & doesn't belong here

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:1350: SetGlobalFlags(flags);
This is confusing! Why do we SetParserFlags while preparsing but SetGlobalFlags
while parsing?

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-11-30 11:49:58]

in my next CL, I want to initialize the shared_function_infos array for scripts
after parsing the toplevel, so I need to tell the two cases apart anyways.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc
File src/parsing/parser.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/src/parsing/parser.cc#oldco...
src/parsing/parser.cc:3854: if (info->is_toplevel()) {
On 2016/11/30 at 11:30:29, marja wrote:
> Could you add DCHECKs into the relevant parse functions that we're using the
right one, like, in ParseProgram info->is_toplevel (or whatever is the right
condition)?

those DCHECKs are already in place

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2534393002/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:1350: SetGlobalFlags(flags);
On 2016/11/30 at 11:30:29, marja wrote:
> This is confusing! Why do we SetParserFlags while preparsing but
SetGlobalFlags while parsing?

oh well, the thing is that the preparser usually doesn't care at all for the
flags but just inherits them from the parser...

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-11-30 11:50:46]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 11:50:51]

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

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-11-30 11:50:54]

now with all source files

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 11:57:43]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 11:57:44]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_win_nosnap_shared_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_win_nosnap_shared_rel_ng...)

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-11-30 12:16:26]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 12:16:36]

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

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-11-30 12:16:46]

and now with ParseAny()

[marja, 2016-11-30 12:36:29]

lgtm

[jgruber, 2016-11-30 12:47:53]

jgruber@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jgruber@chromium.org

[jgruber, 2016-11-30 12:47:53]

lgtm for debug/

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-11-30 12:56:43]

The CQ bit was checked by jochen@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 12:56:50]

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, 2016-11-30 13:21:11]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 80001, "attempt_start_ts": 1480510603581120,
"parent_rev": "36162b66e01218e1ce07d9bc94aa10dcc5b51572", "commit_rev":
"770abeb4dcd042eecc8b9471e20ee331141d0435"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 13:21:19]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 13:21:43]

Description was changed from

==========
Split parsing of functions and top-level code into two separate methods

Also move them to a separate interface header to avoid having to include
parser.h so much

BUG=v8:5589
R=verwaest@chromium.org,marja@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Split parsing of functions and top-level code into two separate methods

Also move them to a separate interface header to avoid having to include
parser.h so much

BUG=v8:5589
R=verwaest@chromium.org,marja@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/a1473f5306068840ab32976c477de800df03f274
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41386}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-30 13:21:44]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/a1473f5306068840ab32976c477de800df03f274
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41386}