Turn get-own-property-descriptor.js test into a regression (issue 10985017)

[erik....@gmail.com]

Reviewers: danno,

Description:
Turn get-own-property-descriptor.js test into a regression
test for an issue.

Please review this at https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/

SVN Base: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/

Affected files:
M test/mjsunit/get-own-property-descriptor.js


Index: test/mjsunit/get-own-property-descriptor.js
===================================================================
--- test/mjsunit/get-own-property-descriptor.js (revision 12595)
+++ test/mjsunit/get-own-property-descriptor.js (working copy)
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@
// A range of more elaborate tests are performed in
// object-define-property.js

+// Flags: --stress-runs=5
+
function get() { return x; }
function set(x) { this.x = x; }

[erik....@gmail.com]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/

[da...@chromium.org]

LGTM, if you omit the test case until somebody (me?) does the ARM port.


https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/diff/4001/src/builtins.cc
File src/builtins.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/diff/4001/src/builtins.cc#newcode1623
src/builtins.cc:1623: union { int force_alignment; byte buffer[8*KB]; }
u;
Why this change here?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/

[erik....@gmail.com]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/

[da...@chromium.org]

LGTM, with the suggesting that you duplicate the the original test and make
it a
regression test with the corresponding bug number.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/

[m.m.ca...@googlemail.com]

This patch is causing failures for us with Sunspider on Cortex-A8/A9. Can
you
confirm?


https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10985017/

[Erik Corry]

Ooops, yes, looking into it.

--
Erik Corry, Software Engineer
Google Denmark ApS - Frederiksborggade 20B, 1 sal,
1360 København K - Denmark - CVR nr. 28 86 69 84

[Erik Corry]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10991045

[Erik Corry]

You should only hit this issue if you are testing on hardware without
VFP2. Or do we have a case where we are not using the VFP hardware
even though we have it?