Previous patches have led up to the point where I create the
new meta-type "'alternate':'Foo'". See the previous patches
for documentation; I intentionally split as much work into
earlier patches to minimize the size of this patch, but a lot
of it is churn due to testsuite fallout after updating to the
new type.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Previous commits demonstrated that the generator had several
flaws with less-than-perfect unions:
- a simple union that listed the same branch twice (or two variant
names that map to the same C enumerator, including the implicit
MAX sentinel) ended up generating invalid C code
- an anonymous union that listed two branches with the same qtype
ended up generating invalid C code
- the generator crashed on anonymous union attempts to use an
array type
- the generator was silently ignoring a base type for anonymous
unions
- the generator allowed unknown types or nested anonymous unions
as a branch in an anonymous union
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Demonstrate that the qapi generator doesn't deal well with unions
that aren't up to par. Later patches will update the expected
reseults as the generator is made stricter. A few tests work
as planned, but most show poor or missing error messages.
Of particular note, qapi-code-gen.txt documents 'base' only for
flat unions, but the tests here demonstrate that we currently allow
a 'base' to a simple union, although it is exercised only in the
testsuite. Later patches will remove this undocumented feature, to
give us more flexibility in adding other future extensions to union
types. For example, one possible extension is the idea of a
type-safe simple enum, where added fields tie the discriminator to
a user-defined enum type rather than creating an implicit enum from
the names in 'data'. But adding such safety on top of a simple
enum with a base type could look ambiguous with a flat enum;
besides, the documentation also mentions how any simple union can
be represented by an equivalent flat union. So it will be simpler
to just outlaw support for something we aren't using.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
