Bug 142382

Summary: __proto__ shorthand property should not modify prototype in Object Literal construction
Product: WebKit Reporter: Joseph Pecoraro <joepeck>
Component: JavaScriptCoreAssignee: Joseph Pecoraro <joepeck>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: ggaren, joepeck, rniwa
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 215769    
Attachments:
Description Flags
[PATCH] Proposed Fix ggaren: review+, ggaren: commit-queue-

Joseph Pecoraro
Reported 2015-03-05 20:29:14 PST
* SUMMARY __proto__ shorthand property should not modify prototype in Object Literal construction. <https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/> has a section that __proto__ should not be supported as a shorthand, citing: "Annex b ยง __proto__ in object literals". {__proto__} should not be equivalent to {__proto__:...}. Seems to be because: PropertyDefinition : IdentifierReference ... 7. Return CreateDataPropertyOrThrow(object, propName, propValue). And that does not fall under the Annex's special case handling of __proto__ in literals for grammar rule: PropertyDefinition : PropertyName : AssignmentExpression So we shouldn't get the special handling. -- Seems the expected behavior of __proto__ as a shorthand would be the equivalent of a Object.defineProperty(obj, "__proto__", { value: ... }) which sets the property but doesn't change the prototype.
Attachments
[PATCH] Proposed Fix (18.50 KB, patch)
2015-03-05 23:41 PST, Joseph Pecoraro
ggaren: review+
ggaren: commit-queue-
Joseph Pecoraro
Comment 1 2015-03-05 23:41:41 PST
Created attachment 248045 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix
Geoffrey Garen
Comment 2 2015-03-06 12:11:26 PST
Comment on attachment 248045 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=248045&action=review r=me > Source/JavaScriptCore/bytecompiler/NodesCodegen.cpp:379 > + generator.emitDirectPutById(newObj, *node.name(), generator.emitNode(node.m_assign), node.putType() == PropertyNode::KnownDirect); I think it would be slightly clearer to pass through the put type instead of a bool.
Joseph Pecoraro
Comment 3 2015-05-18 16:31:56 PDT
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.