+1
> On 01 Dec 2016, at 13:48, Sundararajan Athijegannathan
> <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Good catch Hannes! Please review the updated webrev :
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8170565/webrev.01/
>
> PS. Had to use Function.prototype.call.call to pass undefined this explicitly
> (as JSObject.call can't be called from script).
>
> -Sundar
>
> On 01/12/16, 3:13 PM, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote:
>> Hi Sundar,
>>
>> The problem with this approach is that it will replace any occurrence of
>> undefined this with the global object. However, this should only occur for
>> scope calls. For example, the following call would see undefined replaced
>> with global:
>>
>> func.call(undefined)
>>
>> This is probably not a problem that will occur very often, but ideally I
>> think we should do the check and replacement on the linking side, i.e. in
>> JSObjectLinker.findCallMethod.
>>
>> On the other hand we can’t check for function strictness that way. Maybe do
>> it your way but add a boolean isScope parameter and bind that at link time?
>>
>> Hannes
>>
>>
>>> Am 01.12.2016 um 07:21 schrieb Sundararajan
>>> Athijegannathan<sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com>:
>>>
>>> Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8170565/webrev.00/ for
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170565
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Sundar
