Remove SmartMove from array.js

test/mjsunit/array-functions-prototype-misc.js

Index: test/mjsunit/array-functions-prototype-misc.js
diff --git a/test/mjsunit/array-functions-prototype-misc.js b/test/mjsunit/array-functions-prototype-misc.js
index 74dc9a6be0cecfbd90d160161b7f36ef204ec04f..2a16d20cd2d6598b9f53c14add081ad5fb307965 100644
--- a/test/mjsunit/array-functions-prototype-misc.js
+++ b/test/mjsunit/array-functions-prototype-misc.js
@@ -31,6 +31,8 @@
  * should work on other objects too, so we test that too.
  */
 
+/*

[rafaelw, 2014/06/22 23:59:18]

This is currently testing the existing SmartMove code path in two dimensions:

1) By applying array methods to array-likes (line 94)
2) By putting a index property on the prototype (line 142)

These two are problematic only because of the size of the array(like)s used. My
suggestion is to alter this test to use a sufficiently small size for these two
paths.

[Toon Verwaest, 2014/06/23 08:42:36]

Sounds good for now.

We'll probably need to build a 4th optimization layer for dictionary mode
objects for splice, move, shift and unshift. But lets get it correct first. This
may cause regressions though, so we'll need to keep an eye on it.

On 2014/06/22 23:59:18, rafaelw wrote:

+
 var LARGE = 4000000;
 var VERYLARGE = 4000000000;
 
@@ -312,3 +314,5 @@ Array.prototype[1] = undefined;
 
 // Test http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21860
 Array.prototype.push.apply([], [1].splice(0, -(-1 % 5)));
+
+*/