[ES6] Date.prototype should be a plain object
Created attachment 267952 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 267952 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=267952&action=review You should also test Date instanceof Date. > Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/DatePrototype.h:32 > +// ES6 20.3.4 > +// http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/index.html#sec-properties-of-the-date-prototype-object > +// The Date prototype object is itself an ordinary object. It is not a Date instance and does not have a [[DateValue]] internal slot. You can leave this comment out. svn and bugzilla and test cases should suffice. We used to have a spec link for every function in the project. It was unwieldy.
Created attachment 268257 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 268257 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 268257 Committed r194603: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/194603>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
(In reply to comment #4) > Comment on attachment 268257 [details] > Patch > > Clearing flags on attachment: 268257 > > Committed r194603: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/194603> It broke the cloop build, please fix it ASAP.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Comment on attachment 268257 [details] > > Patch > > > > Clearing flags on attachment: 268257 > > > > Committed r194603: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/194603> > > It broke the cloop build, please fix it ASAP. Ah, not build failure, but test faiure.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Comment on attachment 268257 [details] > > > Patch > > > > > > Clearing flags on attachment: 268257 > > > > > > Committed r194603: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/194603> > > > > It broke the cloop build, please fix it ASAP. > > Ah, not build failure, but test faiure. ** The following JSC stress test failures have been introduced: mozilla-tests.yaml/ecma/Date/15.9.5.js.mozilla mozilla-tests.yaml/ecma/Date/15.9.5.js.mozilla-baseline mozilla-tests.yaml/ecma/Date/15.9.5.js.mozilla-dfg-eager-no-cjit-validate-phases mozilla-tests.yaml/ecma/Date/15.9.5.js.mozilla-ftl mozilla-tests.yaml/ecma/Date/15.9.5.js.mozilla-ftl-eager-no-cjit-validate-phases mozilla-tests.yaml/ecma/Date/15.9.5.js.mozilla-llint
Re-opened since this is blocked by bug 152762
Example of failing CLoop and JSC test runs: <https://build.webkit.org/builders/Apple%20El%20Capitan%20LLINT%20CLoop%20%28BuildAndTest%29/builds/2254> <https://build.webkit.org/builders/Apple%20El%20Capitan%20Debug%20JSC%20%28Tests%29/builds/1233>
The failed test is explicitly testing for the old behavior, where Date.prototype is a Date instance. Either the expectation should change, or the tests should be skipped.
I believe if you put "//@ skip" at the top of the test file it should be skipped. I'm not positive for the mozilla tests, however. If you do so you should put a comment linking to this bugzilla so others know why it's skipped. If adding "//@ skip" doesn't work let me know.
(In reply to comment #12) > I believe if you put "//@ skip" at the top of the test file it should be > skipped. I'm not positive for the mozilla tests, however. If you do so you > should put a comment linking to this bugzilla so others know why it's > skipped. If adding "//@ skip" doesn't work let me know. "//@ skip" doesn't seem to work in this case. It looks like mozilla-tests.yaml can specify that it should be skipped, though. :negative, :fail, and :skip all look like valid options. Which is the most appropriate for this case?
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > I believe if you put "//@ skip" at the top of the test file it should be > > skipped. I'm not positive for the mozilla tests, however. If you do so you > > should put a comment linking to this bugzilla so others know why it's > > skipped. If adding "//@ skip" doesn't work let me know. > > "//@ skip" doesn't seem to work in this case. It looks like > mozilla-tests.yaml can specify that it should be skipped, though. :negative, > :fail, and :skip all look like valid options. Which is the most appropriate > for this case? Ah, I see. Looking at the run-jsc-stress-tests script, negative appears to mean there was an exit code 3 (uncaught exception) and failed means the test return the string "failed!". Based on the test logs from the bots I think you want negative.
Created attachment 268347 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 268347 [details] Patch Let's try again!
Thanks for the help everyone.
Comment on attachment 268347 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 268347 Committed r194636: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/194636>