Interface methods are specifically not allowed to be called: as a result, they don't get a method body. Existing code assumed a 1:1 relationship between methods and bodies, which causes spurious errors.
This is inspired by Dinnerbone's similar PR on the AVM1 side, where the Action half of that VM's `Executable` was reduced from 128 bytes to 16 by shoving it in a `Gc`. This won't be as dramatic but should still save some memory.
In fact, it should save a *lot* of memory in bytecode execution, where thanks to the previous commit's rebase, we now need to clone the current method once *for each instruction executed*. That is terrible, but should stop now.
This also results in a far reduced role for `ReturnValue`, since I also took the liberty of removing most of it's use. Furthermore, I also made it apply equally to native and AVM2 code, which ensures all native implementations of methods don't double-borrow.
In AVM1, `ReturnValue` was actually removed entirely, because it's not needed. I attempted to do the same, but the fact that we're currently embedding `ScriptObjectData` in native objects means that we need it for virtual properties. Otherwise, virtual property implementations will see locked objects, which is bad.
While some code that references pool multinames has zero as a valid index, we cannot validate exactly what the zero index is for a given index. Hence, callers instantiating multinames must check for zero and substitute the correct zero-value interpretation for their given type. If zero is an invalid value, it should ideally throw a different error than what's provided here.
This commit breaks the build: we still need to tell `Avm2` how to turn ABC traits into our own internal `Trait<'gc>`, `Class<'gc>`, and `Method<'gc>` types. We also need something to track which traits have already been instantiated, because `callstatic` would otherwise reinstantiate the trait in a different scope. (In fact, I think it *does* do exactly that right now...)
The intention is to completely replace all usage of `Avm2XYZEntry` with `Class`, `Trait`, and `Method`. This will allow runtime-provided global class traits to coexist with those provided by user code.
Inspired by Dinnerbone's PR doing the exact same thing to AVM1.
On AVM2 we have a bit of a subtle issue: the base implementation of `set_property_local` and `init_property_local` *must* return `ReturnValue`s to avoid double-borrows. Each implementation of `TObject` must resolve them before returning.
This function has vague documentation about enabling locale-specific formatting in subclasses. As far as I can tell, none of the objects I implemented so far do anything different than `toString`, so I just have it use the same `TObject` property I set up for `toString`.
We still reuse the `FunctionObject` machinery internally. If necessary, we may want to split this into a separate `ClassObject` if some internal `TObject` method needs replacing for classes.
In practice not many movies will care about this, because the `AS3` namespace is open by default. You could opt-out of that, and I suppose that was there for using existing ES3 code in AS3 projects. ES4 would have had a similar ES4 namespace, which "JavaScript 2.0" code would need to opt into. Of course, ES4/JS2 never happened, so we just have this weird historical quirk here.
The reason for this is that, in AVM2, `toString` and `valueOf` are not defined on the classes or prototypes of `Function` or `Class`. Instead, they use the `Object.prototype` versions of those functions. Ergo, string and primitive coercion are inherent object methods (the ones that get `[[DoubleSquareBrackets]]` in the ECMA standards). In Ruffle, our equivalent to `[[DoubleSquareBrackets]]` methods are methods on the `TObject` trait, so we're adding them there.
This mechanism will make implementing boxed value types (ala AVM1's `BoxedObject`) easier, too.
We also add some reasonable defaults for `ScriptObject` and `FunctionObject` which will appear on objects, functions, and classes.
Private names now return `false`, and we run any names through trait lookups. This also means any namespace resolution can fail now, in case we need to throw a `VerifyError`.
I have... significant reservations with the way object enumeration happens in AVM2. For comparison, AVM1 enumeration works like this: You enumerate the entire object at once, producing a list of property names, which are then pushed onto the stack after a sentinel value. This is a properly abstract way to handle property enumeration.
In AVM2, they completely replaced this with index-based enumeration. What this means is that you hand the object an index and it gives you back a name or value. There's also an instruction that will give you the next index in the object.
The only advantage I can think of is that it results in less stack manipulation if you want to bail out of iteration early. You just jump out of your loop and kill the registers you don't care about. The disadvantage is that it locks the object representation down pretty hard. They also screwed up the definition of `hasnext`, and thus the VM is stuck enumerating properties from 1. This is because `hasnext` and `hasnext2` increment the index value before checking the object. Code generated by Animate 2020 (which I suspect to be the final version of that software that generates AVM2 code) initializes the index at hero, and then does `hasnext2`, hence we have to start from one.
I actually cheated a little and added a separate `Vec` for storing enumerant names. I strongly suspect that Adobe's implementation has objects be inherently slot-oriented, and named properties are just hashmap lookups to slots. This would allow enumerating the slots to get names out of the object.
Our already odd `super` handling throws up another subtlety regarding bound recievers. Since we have to construct an instance of a parent class in order to get traits on it, we also have to make sure that we initialize traits with the correct reciever. I'll demonstrate here:
```let mut base = base_proto.construct(avm, context, &[])?;
let name = base.resolve_multiname(&multiname).unwrap();
let value = base.get_property(object, &name, avm, context)?.resolve(avm, context)?```
In this case, if `name` is the name of a method, getter, or setter trait, then `get_property` will instantiate that trait on `base` but bound to `reciever`. This is correct behavior for this case, but more generally, trait instantiation is permenant and therefore there's potential for confusing shenanigans if you `get_property` with the wrong reciever.
To be very clear, `reciever` should *always* be the same object that is getting `get_property` et. all called on it. In the event that you need to instantiate traits with a different `reciever`, you should construct a one-off object and retrieve prototypes from that.
Previously, we were treating ES4 classes like syntactic sugar over a prototype chain (like ES6 classes); e.g. each declared trait was set in the given prototype and then property look-ups happened as normal.
This already caused problems with virtual properties, which could be partially-defined in subclasses and required careful checks to make sure we stopped checking the prototype chain on the *correct* half of the property.
However, this is a hint of a larger problem, which is that ES4 classes don't actually define anything on the prototype chain. Instead, the instance itself constructs class properties and methods on itself. This allows things like methods automatically binding `this`, which isn't included in this commit but will be implemented really soon.
The prototype chain still exists even on pure ES4 classes, due to the need for backwards compatibility with ES3 code. Object, for example, still defines it's methods as prototype methods and thus there needs to be a prototype chain to reach them. I actually could have gotten away with using the prototype chain if AS3 *hadn't* retained this "legacy" detail of ES3 allowing this class/prototype distinction to leak out into upcoming tests.
We still actually use the prototype chain for one other thing: trait resolution. When we look for a trait to install onto an object, we pull traits from the prototype chain using a special set of `TObject` methods. This happens in opposite order from normal prototype lookups so that subclassing and verification can proceed correctly.
`super` somehow became even harder to implement: we now actually construct the parent class so we can get traits from it, which is going to complicate method binding as mentioned above.
David Wendt