RFR: 7903600: Add more tests for unsupported types

[Jorn Vernee]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:20:45 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <mcimadamore 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 `System.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 function 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 checked 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.
>
> src/main/java/org/openjdk/jextract/impl/UnsupportedFilter.java line 192:
> 
>> 190:         String unsupportedType = firstUnsupportedType(func);
>> 191:         if (unsupportedType != null) {
>> 192:             warnUnsupportedType(nameOfSkipped, unsupportedType);
> 
> Should we consolidate this with the other warnings? At the end of the day, we're skipping here because of an unsupported type, so (for consistency) I'd prefer to see `warnSkip` being used, where "unsupported type" appears in the "cause"

I'll do this. It introduces a bit of duplication between the warning messages, but it's probably clearer for the reader.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jextract/pull/152#discussion_r1415597916