[turbofan] Introduce dedicated StringIndexOf operator.

[turbofan] Introduce dedicated StringIndexOf operator.

The StringIndexOf operation is pure on the JS level, but the actual stub
call must be in the effect chain later so that the Scheduler doesn't
place it inside some allocation region (The %StringIndexOf runtime
function may trigger a GC for string flattening).

BUG=chromium:685680
R=jarin@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2657243002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#42736}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/b975441e77a0bf47d7ed361ca37a431e0cfb2f38

[Benedikt Meurer, 2017-01-27 11:29:17]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-27 11:29:25]

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

[Jarin, 2017-01-27 11:33:06]

lgtm

[Benedikt Meurer, 2017-01-27 11:35:32]

The CQ bit was unchecked by bmeurer@chromium.org

[Benedikt Meurer, 2017-01-27 11:35:37]

The CQ bit was checked by bmeurer@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-27 11:35:41]

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, 2017-01-27 12:02:43]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1485516937957150, "parent_rev":
"c5644146bc4f8725cfba440940590c9a53fab552", "commit_rev":
"b975441e77a0bf47d7ed361ca37a431e0cfb2f38"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-27 12:02:47]

Description was changed from

==========
[turbofan] Introduce dedicated StringIndexOf operator.

The StringIndexOf operation is pure on the JS level, but the actual stub
call must be in the effect chain later so that the Scheduler doesn't
place it inside some allocation region (The %StringIndexOf runtime
function may trigger a GC for string flattening).

BUG=chromium:685580
R=jarin@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
[turbofan] Introduce dedicated StringIndexOf operator.

The StringIndexOf operation is pure on the JS level, but the actual stub
call must be in the effect chain later so that the Scheduler doesn't
place it inside some allocation region (The %StringIndexOf runtime
function may trigger a GC for string flattening).

BUG=chromium:685580
R=jarin@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2657243002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#42736}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/b975441e77a0bf47d7ed361ca37a431e0cf...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-27 12:02:48]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/b975441e77a0bf47d7ed361ca37a431e0cf...

[adamk, 2017-01-27 19:37:22]

Description was changed from

==========
[turbofan] Introduce dedicated StringIndexOf operator.

The StringIndexOf operation is pure on the JS level, but the actual stub
call must be in the effect chain later so that the Scheduler doesn't
place it inside some allocation region (The %StringIndexOf runtime
function may trigger a GC for string flattening).

BUG=chromium:685580
R=jarin@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2657243002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#42736}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/b975441e77a0bf47d7ed361ca37a431e0cf...
==========

to

==========
[turbofan] Introduce dedicated StringIndexOf operator.

The StringIndexOf operation is pure on the JS level, but the actual stub
call must be in the effect chain later so that the Scheduler doesn't
place it inside some allocation region (The %StringIndexOf runtime
function may trigger a GC for string flattening).

BUG=chromium:685680
R=jarin@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2657243002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#42736}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/b975441e77a0bf47d7ed361ca37a431e0cf...
==========

[falken, 2017-02-07 02:24:42]

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

[falken, 2017-02-07 02:24:43]

Is BUG=chromium:685680 correct?

[Benedikt Meurer, 2017-02-07 03:05:00]

On 2017/02/07 02:24:43, falken wrote:
> Is BUG=chromium:685680 correct?

No it was a typo.

[falken, 2017-02-07 04:14:52]

On 2017/02/07 03:05:00, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> On 2017/02/07 02:24:43, falken wrote:
> > Is BUG=chromium:685680 correct?
> 
> No it was a typo.

Note for the historical record: the commit landed with BUG=chromium:685580 but
it should really be BUG=chromium:685680 (as in the current CL description).

[Benedikt Meurer, 2017-02-07 05:00:05]

On 2017/02/07 04:14:52, falken wrote:
> On 2017/02/07 03:05:00, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> > On 2017/02/07 02:24:43, falken wrote:
> > > Is BUG=chromium:685680 correct?
> > 
> > No it was a typo.
> 
> Note for the historical record: the commit landed with BUG=chromium:685580 but
> it should really be BUG=chromium:685680 (as in the current CL description).

Ah, right, sorry. Thanks for fixing.