`1..isPrototypeOf.call(null)` should return false, not throw TypeError.

`1..isPrototypeOf.call(null)` should return false, not throw TypeError.

BUG=v8:3483
LOG=Y
R=rossberg@chromium.org

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=25116

[mathiasb, 2014-08-04 09:18:03]

Drive-by comment: no test?

[Yang, 2014-08-13 09:25:07]

On 2014/08/04 09:18:03, mathiasb wrote:
> Drive-by comment: no test?

Yup. Test case would be great.

You also haven't seem to have signed the individual contributors CLA:
https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual?csw=1

[ziyunfei, 2014-08-14 04:20:19]

`1..isPrototypeOf.call(null)` should return false, not throw TypeError.

BUG=v8:3483
LOG=Y

[ziyunfei, 2014-08-14 04:21:07]

On 2014/08/13 09:25:07, Yang wrote:
> On 2014/08/04 09:18:03, mathiasb wrote:
> > Drive-by comment: no test?
> 
> Yup. Test case would be great.
> 
> You also haven't seem to have signed the individual contributors CLA:
> https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual?csw=1

Added Test case! :)

[Yang, 2014-08-18 09:26:38]

On 2014/08/14 04:21:07, ziyunfei wrote:
> On 2014/08/13 09:25:07, Yang wrote:
> > On 2014/08/04 09:18:03, mathiasb wrote:
> > > Drive-by comment: no test?
> > 
> > Yup. Test case would be great.
> > 
> > You also haven't seem to have signed the individual contributors CLA:
> > https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual?csw=1
> 
> Added Test case! :)

Thank you. But we still require you to sign the contributor's CLA so that we can
take your patch.

[ziyunfei, 2014-08-18 09:49:58]

On 2014/08/18 09:26:38, Yang wrote:
> On 2014/08/14 04:21:07, ziyunfei wrote:
> > On 2014/08/13 09:25:07, Yang wrote:
> > > On 2014/08/04 09:18:03, mathiasb wrote:
> > > > Drive-by comment: no test?
> > > 
> > > Yup. Test case would be great.
> > > 
> > > You also haven't seem to have signed the individual contributors CLA:
> > > https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual?csw=1
> > 
> > Added Test case! :)
> 
> Thank you. But we still require you to sign the contributor's CLA so that we
can
> take your patch.

I have just signed the CLA, thanks Yang.

[rossberg, 2014-08-19 12:15:17]

This fails mjsunit/function-call, probably needs adapting.

[ziyunfei, 2014-08-19 12:58:41]

On 2014/08/19 12:15:17, rossberg wrote:
> This fails mjsunit/function-call, probably needs adapting.

Thanks, I will remove `Object.prototype.isPrototypeOf` from array
`should_throw_on_null_and_undefined` in mjsunit/function-call and submit a new
patch.

[rossberg, 2014-08-21 11:16:52]

https://codereview.chromium.org/433413002/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/function-ca...
File test/mjsunit/function-call.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/433413002/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/function-ca...
test/mjsunit/function-call.js:33: Object.prototype.isPrototypeOf,
I don't think we want to simply remove this, since it's still a relevant test
that shouldn't be dropped. What we want is to invoke it such that it tests the
right thing. For example, simply pass a dummy object argument in the .call that
invokes these functions.

[ziyunfei, 2014-08-28 13:25:42]

On 2014/08/21 11:16:52, rossberg wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/433413002/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/function-ca...
> File test/mjsunit/function-call.js (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/433413002/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/function-ca...
> test/mjsunit/function-call.js:33: Object.prototype.isPrototypeOf,
> I don't think we want to simply remove this, since it's still a relevant test
> that shouldn't be dropped. What we want is to invoke it such that it tests the
> right thing. For example, simply pass a dummy object argument in the .call
that
> invokes these functions.

Thanks for your instruction rossberg, I have updated my patch.

[rossberg, 2014-11-03 14:40:21]

lgtm

[rossberg, 2014-11-04 16:14:01]

Committed patchset #5 manually as 25116 (presubmit successful).