Set @@toStringTag on GeneratorFunction prototype.

Set @@toStringTag on GeneratorFunction prototype.

R=caitpotter88@gmail.com
BUG=v8:3502
LOG=N

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-11-27 11:43:04]

PTAL

[caitp (gmail), 2014-11-27 15:05:11]

Lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js:71: assertTrue(iter !== new g());
I think the reason I didn't add this before was that GeneratorFunction was not
exposed (it looks like the GeneratorFunction is meant to be exposed as a builtin
from the spec) --- would it make sense to have a TODO here for a simpler test
just involving `new GeneratorFunction`?

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-11-27 15:12:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js:71: assertTrue(iter !== new g());
On 2014/11/27 15:05:11, caitp wrote:
> I think the reason I didn't add this before was that GeneratorFunction was not
> exposed (it looks like the GeneratorFunction is meant to be exposed as a
builtin
> from the spec) --- would it make sense to have a TODO here for a simpler test
> just involving `new GeneratorFunction`?

GeneratorFucntion is not exposed per ES6 spec.

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-11-27 15:12:45]

The CQ bit was checked by dslomov@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-27 15:13:54]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/764823002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-27 15:13:55]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-27 15:13:56]

No LGTM from a valid reviewer yet. Only full committers are accepted.
Even if an LGTM may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-11-27 15:14:31]

dslomov@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rossberg@chromium.org

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-11-27 15:14:55]

rossberg@, could you take a look as well?

[caitp (gmail), 2014-11-27 15:15:06]

On 2014/11/27 15:12:36, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
> File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
> test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js:71: assertTrue(iter !== new g());
> On 2014/11/27 15:05:11, caitp wrote:
> > I think the reason I didn't add this before was that GeneratorFunction was
not
> > exposed (it looks like the GeneratorFunction is meant to be exposed as a
> builtin
> > from the spec) --- would it make sense to have a TODO here for a simpler
test
> > just involving `new GeneratorFunction`?
> 
> GeneratorFucntion is not exposed per ES6 spec.

I get a different impression from 25.2.1, but maybe I'm misreading it. Looks
good though

[rossberg, 2014-11-27 15:19:27]

lgtm

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-11-27 15:30:46]

The CQ bit was checked by dslomov@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-27 15:30:55]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/764823002/1

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014-11-27 15:32:55]

On 2014/11/27 15:15:06, caitp wrote:
> On 2014/11/27 15:12:36, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
> > File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js (left):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/764823002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-...
> > test/mjsunit/es6/generators-objects.js:71: assertTrue(iter !== new g());
> > On 2014/11/27 15:05:11, caitp wrote:
> > > I think the reason I didn't add this before was that GeneratorFunction was
> not
> > > exposed (it looks like the GeneratorFunction is meant to be exposed as a
> > builtin
> > > from the spec) --- would it make sense to have a TODO here for a simpler
> test
> > > just involving `new GeneratorFunction`?
> > 
> > GeneratorFucntion is not exposed per ES6 spec.
> 
> I get a different impression from 25.2.1, but maybe I'm misreading it. Looks
> good though

18.3 (constructor properties of the global object) does not list
GeneratorFunction.
Figure 2 (informative; right above 25.2.1) states that GeneratorFunction does
not have a global name.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-27 16:09:39]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)