RFR: 7903600: Add more tests for unsupported types

[Jorn Vernee]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 20:42:16 GMT, Jorn Vernee <jvernee at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Add more tests for unsupported types. See the new TestUnsupportedTypes.java
> 
> While working on this, I also noticed several cases of dead code: `FunctionalInterfaceScanner` is completely unused, and `InMemoryJavaCompiler::jfoFromByteArray` and `InMemoryJavaCompiler::jfoFromString` (and its caller in `OutputFactory`) are unused as well. I've removed them in this PR.
> 
> Changes in this PR:
> - I'm passing in the error stream PrintWriter that we create in the test all the way down to UnsupportedFilter, so that it can write to it instead of `Sytstem.err`. Then we can check what was written in the test. 
> - I've added warning print outs for the different reasons why we are skipping declarations. Some of these were missing.
> - I've removed a check for ValueLayouts that are larger than 8 bytes in `visitVariable`. If the type of a variable is an unsupported primitive, we already filter it out earlier on in the method, so there's no need to check again.
> - I've added a missing `Skip.with` in `visitVariable`, so that we will filter out (global) variables with unsupported types.
> - I've added skipping of typedefs when they have an unsupported type or a type that does not have a layout. For the latter, I've also had to remove a test case that check if we generated a typedef class for an undefined struct type. Since the struct is undefined, I believe we should not generate a typedef binding class for that case.
> 
> The new test covers all the unsupported type cases that are handled by TestUnsupportedTypes.

test/lib/testlib/JextractToolRunner.java line 149:

> 147:         StringWriter writer = new StringWriter();
> 148:         PrintWriter pw = new PrintWriter(writer);
> 149:         String[] args = new String[options.length + 1];

Also dead code.

test/testng/org/openjdk/jextract/test/toolprovider/Test8245767.java line 50:

> 48:             Class<?> fooCls = loader.loadClass("Foo");
> 49:             assertNotNull(fooCls);
> 50: 

This is the problematic test case that I believe to be testing for behavior that we do not want.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jextract/pull/152#discussion_r1414470925
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jextract/pull/152#discussion_r1414471689