I just checked what Safari (or really: Webkit Nightly) does.
1. It doesn't follow the spec on whether an aliased call to eval is direct,
if the aliasing variable is called "eval". I.e., our current behavior
actually matches Safari/JSC, so that
window.x = "global";alert(function(eval) { var x = "local"; return
eval("x"); }(eval));
alerts "global", not "local".
So, for all my complaints about us not following the spec on eval, it's
really irrelevant, since we match Safari.
I'll close the bug until JSC changes, they probably will eventually (
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=994 ).
2. An indirect call to eval from a strict-mode context isn't itself treated
as strict.
I.e.
(function(){"use strict"; var alias = eval; alias("var arguments"); })()
doesn't throw a SyntaxError. That's spec compliant (section 10.10.1, second
point).
Cheers
/L
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:30, <a...@chromium.org> wrote:
> What happens if you have an indirect call to eval from strict mode code.
> Should
> the eval compile in strict mode or not?
>
> function f(this_could_be_eval, s) { this_could_be_eval(s); }
> f(eval, "with (String.prototype) { ... }")
>
> Should that throw an exception or not? This hits the builtin eval function
> with
> the global object as the scope currently. It does not go through the paths
> that
> you have modified. Is non-strict the right behavior for these global evals
> through aliases?
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6286043/diff/1/src/runtime.cc
> File src/runtime.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6286043/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode7647
> src/runtime.cc:7647: Handle<JSFunction>
> caller(JSFunction::cast(frame->function()));
> On 2011/02/02 05:07:26, Martin Maly wrote:
>
>> Alternative to walking the stack frames is passing additional argument
>>
> (strict
>
>> mode flag). This works well but am not sure whether it is the right
>>
> way to do
>
>> this. Open to suggestions.
>>
>
> When you are compiling the caller you know whether or not it is strict
> mode so I would pass that in as an extra argument. Iterating stack
> frames is less direct and it is also not cheap.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6286043/diff/1/src/runtime.cc#newcode7671
> src/runtime.cc:7671: JavaScriptFrame* frame =
> locator.FindJavaScriptFrame(0);
> On 2011/02/02 05:07:26, Martin Maly wrote:
>
>> Alternative to walking the stack frames is passing additional argument
>>
> (strict
>
>> mode flag). This works well but am not sure whether it is the right
>>
> way to do
>
>> this. Open to suggestions.
>>
>
> I would go for the additional argument here too.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6286043/
>
--
Lasse R.H. Nielsen
l...@google.com
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine'
Google Denmark ApS - Frederiksborggade 20B, 1 sal - 1360 København K -
Denmark - CVR nr. 28 86 69 84
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
