Handle super.__proto__, which has a special implementation
#1737
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Merged
andreabergia
force-pushed
the
super-ref
branch
from
5f8858c to
b78ebe6
Compare
Co-authored-by: Satish Srinivasan <satish.srinivasan@servicenow.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Srinivasan <satish.srinivasan@servicenow.com>
andreabergia
force-pushed
the
super-ref
branch
from
b78ebe6 to
2852f35
Compare
gbrail
approved these changes
Dec 3, 2024
|
Merged this onto #1735 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR, co-authored with @0xe, adds support for the crazy
super.__proto__. It is stacked on top of #1735.In Rhino there is a special implementation that uses
RefandGET_REF(and similar) for things likea.__proto__,a.__parent__and xml access. We have extended this tosuper.A really surprising thing that we discovered looking at other engines is that the semantics of
super.__proto__is a bit confusing - it ends up beingthis.__proto__basically, because__proto__is resolved onsuperbut then accessed onthis. So, the implementation uses a horrible hack: it replacessuper.__proto__withthis.__proto__in the IR. This seems to work, according to the tests that we have added, and while a bit dirty, it seems fine to us for such a strange edge case.