7904089: jextract cannot handle "void foo(int foo)"

[nizarbenalla]

Please review this change to fix a name conflicts between functions and name parameters.

TIA!

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Change must be properly reviewed (no review required)

Issue

• CODETOOLS-7904089: jextract cannot handle "void foo(int foo)" (Bug - P3)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jextract.git pull/292/head:pull/292
$ git checkout pull/292

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/292
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jextract.git pull/292/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 292

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 292

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jextract/pull/292.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back nbenalla! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@nizarbenalla This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

7904089: jextract cannot handle "void foo(int foo)"

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been no new commits pushed to the master branch. If another commit should be pushed before you perform the /integrate command, your PR will be automatically rebased. If you prefer to avoid any potential automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (5e55deb0)

[mcimadamore]

should this use finalParameterNames ? Note that finalParameterNames might contain additional parameters -- e.g. for the segment allocator.

[nizarbenalla]

I think that most of the time, they are the same.
finalParameterNames sometimes has the additional x0, x1 parameters but we can check for conflicts with those as well.

[nizarbenalla]

I noticed we can have conflicts for void foo_variadic(int x1, ...); too, I will update the PR to handle this