Ensure that we do a non-incremental GC before relying on weak handle callbacks.

Ensure that we do a non-incremental GC before relying on weak handle callbacks.

Previously, some tests failed when being run with a low GC interval. This was
caused by a switch of the GC to incremental marking mode, which in turn did not
fire any callbacks for weak global handles. Now we make sure that we run in
non-incremental mode, although via a slightly misleading GC flag.

We should probably review the uses of PerformScavenge() and gc() in our tests to
see if they actually mean "make sure our callbacks fired".

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=10681

[Michael Starzinger, 2012-02-13 09:50:52]

LGTM (with a nit).

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9378007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-deopti...
File test/cctest/test-deoptimization.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9378007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-deopti...
test/cctest/test-deoptimization.cc:100: // Do a non-incremental GC, making sure
that all weak global handle callbacks
More precise: "Abort any ongoing incremental marking to make sure ..."

[Sven Panne, 2012-02-13 10:09:56]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9378007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-deoptimization.cc
File test/cctest/test-deoptimization.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9378007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-deoptimization...
test/cctest/test-deoptimization.cc:100: // Do a non-incremental GC, making sure
that all weak global handle callbacks
On 2012/02/13 09:50:52, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> More precise: "Abort any ongoing incremental marking to make sure ..."

Done.