Remove calls to JSObject::SetLocalPropertyIgnoreAttributesTrampoline within objects.cc

test/cctest/test-dictionary.cc

Index: test/cctest/test-dictionary.cc
diff --git a/test/cctest/test-dictionary.cc b/test/cctest/test-dictionary.cc
index 44f64f788101cf8d8aa289ac3c81eed134b6934f..007aa61b578b90db955f590e606ab52b39752c04 100644
--- a/test/cctest/test-dictionary.cc
+++ b/test/cctest/test-dictionary.cc
@@ -175,13 +175,17 @@ TEST(ObjectHashSetCausesGC) {
   SimulateFullSpace(CcTest::heap()->old_pointer_space());
 
   // Calling Contains() should not cause GC ever.
-  CHECK(!table->Contains(*key));
+  int gc_count = isolate->heap()->gc_count();

[rafaelw, 2013/10/29 19:14:51]

I just took a guess at how to address this test.

[Michael Starzinger, 2013/11/04 10:29:11]

Yes, I think using the GC-count makes sense.

+  CHECK(!ObjectHashSet::Contains(table, key));
+  CHECK(gc_count == isolate->heap()->gc_count());
 
   // Calling Remove() should not cause GC ever.

[rafaelw, 2013/10/29 19:14:51]

This comment doesn't seem true. I believe it's always true for this test, but
Remove() can clearly allocate more memory via Shrink.

[Michael Starzinger, 2013/11/04 10:29:11]

You are right, the comment only holds for a HashSet of this particular size.
Maybe we should adapt the comment accordingly.

[rafaelw, 2013/11/04 15:12:01]

Done.

-  CHECK(!table->Remove(*key)->IsFailure());
+  table = ObjectHashSet::Remove(table, key);
+  CHECK(gc_count == isolate->heap()->gc_count());
 
-  // Calling Add() should request GC by returning a failure.
-  CHECK(table->Add(*key)->IsRetryAfterGC());
+  // Calling Add() should cause GC.
+  table = ObjectHashSet::Add(table, key);
+  CHECK(gc_count < isolate->heap()->gc_count());
 }
 #endif