Instead of aborting with an assert, exit with an error when we get an OOM

Instead of aborting with an assert, exit with an error when we get an OOM
while handling messages. This is a temporary solution until we have the
isolate error handling mechanism in place (for issue 1403).
Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=13433

[cshapiro, 2012-09-15 03:45:31]

lgtm with minor comments

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc
File vm/exceptions.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:165: // There are no dart invocation frames on the stack we do
not
Might be missing a word.  How about "so we" rather than just "we"?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:166: // have a caller to return to, this is a case where we
would have
This seems like 2 sentences.  How about a period instead of a comma after the
to?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:171: OS::Print("Exception '%s' thrown:\n",
exception.ToCString());
Why not OS::PrintErr?  Maybe note that we are exiting?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:172: OS::Exit(255);
Just a thought: this is not the first place where Exit is called with a value of
255.  Maybe it is time for an OS::ErrorExit or some such thing?

[siva, 2012-10-09 19:01:52]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc
File vm/exceptions.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:165: // There are no dart invocation frames on the stack we do
not
On 2012/09/15 03:45:31, cshapiro wrote:
> Might be missing a word.  How about "so we" rather than just "we"?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:166: // have a caller to return to, this is a case where we
would have
On 2012/09/15 03:45:31, cshapiro wrote:
> This seems like 2 sentences.  How about a period instead of a comma after the
> to?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:166: // have a caller to return to, this is a case where we
would have
On 2012/09/15 03:45:31, cshapiro wrote:
> This seems like 2 sentences.  How about a period instead of a comma after the
> to?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:171: OS::Print("Exception '%s' thrown:\n",
exception.ToCString());
On 2012/09/15 03:45:31, cshapiro wrote:
> Why not OS::PrintErr?  Maybe note that we are exiting?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915295/diff/3/vm/exceptions.cc#newco...
vm/exceptions.cc:172: OS::Exit(255);
Agree, that would work for exits from the VM but those should all be changed to
calling the Isolate exit handler so we should probably do this as part of the
isolate exit handler change.

On 2012/09/15 03:45:31, cshapiro wrote:
> Just a thought: this is not the first place where Exit is called with a value
of
> 255.  Maybe it is time for an OS::ErrorExit or some such thing?