Also minimize scope of DiagnosticUsingJavac tests to
`compiler/testData/diagnostics/tests/javac`. This is fine since
javac compilation mode is still not finished and no one not going to
support it
All of new classes lays in lays in :compiler:tests-common-new module
which includes classes for FE 1.0 and FIR diagnostics tests and
JVM black boxtests
There was a problem with cases like that:
<!FOO!><!BAR!>some text<!><!>
^ ^
1 2
(1) is a closing tag for <!FOO!> and (2) is for <!BAR!>, but before the
fix they were matched contrariwise
The problem is that JvmRecord has SOURCE retention
Probably, increasing its retention might be a more reliable solution
(or in some other way serializing that the class is a record)
Just checking supertypes seems like a reasonable approximation:
only records kotlin are allowed to extend j.l.Record.
But the relevant diagnostic has been added only since 1.4.30,
so potentially there could have been exist a non-record class with
such supertype compiled by 1.4.20, but this case seems to be ill-formed
and marginal anyway.
For Java classes, it's irrelevant since they don't have member properties
(only synthetic extensions)
^KT-43677 In Progress
If we do, the local variable table will not make sense. As as
example:
```
inline fun foo(getString: () -> String = { "OK" }) {
println(getString())
}
inline fun bar() {
}
fun main() {
bar()
foo()
}
```
leads to the following bytecode:
```
public static final void main();
descriptor: ()V
flags: ACC_PUBLIC, ACC_STATIC, ACC_FINAL
Code:
stack=2, locals=4, args_size=0
0: iconst_0
1: istore_0
2: nop
3: nop
4: iconst_0
5: istore_1
6: nop
7: ldc #53 // String OK
9: astore_2
10: iconst_0
11: istore_3
12: getstatic #30 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
15: aload_2
16: invokevirtual #36 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/Object;)V
19: nop
20: return
LineNumberTable:
line 9: 0
line 13: 2
line 10: 3
line 14: 4
line 15: 6
line 16: 7
line 17: 19
line 11: 20
LocalVariableTable:
Start Length Slot Name Signature
2 1 0 $i$f$bar I
6 14 1 $i$f$foo I
4 16 0 getString$iv Lkotlin/jvm/functions/Function0;
```
The `getString$iv` local should not be there. It has been inlined away.
Leaving it in the local variable table leads to inconsistent locals
info. Local 0 contains an int but we declare a local of type
Function0.
Dmitriy Novozhilov