Add more inlining unit tests.

test/cctest/compiler/test-run-inlining.cc

Index: test/cctest/compiler/test-run-inlining.cc
diff --git a/test/cctest/compiler/test-run-inlining.cc b/test/cctest/compiler/test-run-inlining.cc
index c4e3aeaccb07e2ea4eb40bfe5b3815e216c77ed5..add2f943ec3ed494a72d9ab8df9e436dd2e1b40d 100644
--- a/test/cctest/compiler/test-run-inlining.cc
+++ b/test/cctest/compiler/test-run-inlining.cc
@@ -191,4 +191,57 @@ TEST(InlineTwiceDependentDiamondReal) {
   T.CheckCall(T.Val(-11), T.Val(11), T.Val(4));
 }
 
+
+TEST(InlineLoop) {
+  FunctionTester T(
+      "(function () {"
+      "var x = 41;"
+      "function foo(s) { AssertStackDepth(1); while (s > 0) {"
+      "                  s = s - 1; }; return s; };"
+      "function bar(s,t) { return foo(foo(s)); };"
+      "return bar;"
+      "})();",
+      CompilationInfo::kInliningEnabled |
+          CompilationInfo::kContextSpecializing);
+
+  InstallAssertStackDepthHelper(CcTest::isolate());
+  T.CheckCall(T.Val(0.0), T.Val(11), T.Val(4));
+}
+
+
+TEST(InlineStrictIntoNonStrict) {
+  FunctionTester T(
+      "(function () {"
+      "var x = {};"
+      "Object.defineProperty(x, \"y\", { value: 42, writable: false });"
+      "function foo(s) { 'use strict';"
+      "                   x.y = 9; };"
+      "function bar(s,t) { return foo(s); };"
+      "return bar;"
+      "})();",
+      CompilationInfo::kInliningEnabled |
+          CompilationInfo::kContextSpecializing);
+
+  InstallAssertStackDepthHelper(CcTest::isolate());
+  T.CheckThrows(T.undefined(), T.undefined());
+}
+
+
+TEST(InlineNonStrictIntoStrict) {
+  FunctionTester T(
+      "(function () {"
+      "var x = {};"
+      "Object.defineProperty(obj1, \"y\", { value: 42, writable: false });"

[Michael Starzinger, 2014/08/28 09:49:00]

It seems "obj1" is never defined. This means that this line will essentially be
a no-op I think. There is a shorter way of writing this which avoid this problem
(also applies above) ...

var x = Object.create({}, { y: { value:42, writable:false } });

[sigurds, 2014/08/28 11:05:37]

That's a mistake, thanks for catching!

+      "function foo(s) { x.y = 9; return 42; };"

[Michael Starzinger, 2014/08/28 09:49:00]

You could use "return x.y" here as an additional verification that the
assignment really was ignored.

[sigurds, 2014/08/28 11:05:37]

Done.

+      "function bar(s,t) { \'use strict\'; return foo(s); };"
+      "return bar;"
+      "})();",
+      CompilationInfo::kInliningEnabled |
+          CompilationInfo::kContextSpecializing);
+
+  InstallAssertStackDepthHelper(CcTest::isolate());
+  T.CheckCall(T.Val(42), T.undefined(), T.undefined());
+}
+
+
 #endif  // V8_TURBOFAN_TARGET