compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests by Enselic · Pull Request #150201 · rust-lang/rust

Enselic · 2025-12-20T16:35:29Z

And start using revisions in tests/debuginfo/macro-stepping.rs to prevent regressing both with and without SingleUseConsts MIR pass.

I recommend commit-by-commit review.

TODO

Verify this more carefully.
Possibly do some preparatory PRs before taking this PR out of draft.
- Rebase on compiletest: Add LineNumber newtype to avoid +1 magic here and there #150205 once merged so we don't have to add another "+ 1".

CC

CC @Zalathar since you might have opinions about that I expose a helper function to reduce duplication

CC @saethlin since this is what we will use for tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs in #147426 (in the same way I use it in tests/debuginfo/macro-stepping.rs here)

tests/debuginfo/function-arg-initialization.rs: Stop disabling SingleUseConsts MIR pass This test passes locally for me. Let's see if it passes CI too. Discovered while I worked on rust-lang#150201. CC rust-lang#128945

tests/debuginfo/function-arg-initialization.rs: Stop disabling SingleUseConsts MIR pass This test passes locally for me. Let's see if it passes CI too. Discovered while I worked on #150201. CC #128945

tests/debuginfo/function-arg-initialization.rs: Stop disabling SingleUseConsts MIR pass This test passes locally for me. Let's see if it passes CI too. Discovered while I worked on rust-lang#150201. CC rust-lang#128945

Rollup merge of #150210 - Enselic:run-mir-pass, r=saethlin tests/debuginfo/function-arg-initialization.rs: Stop disabling SingleUseConsts MIR pass This test passes locally for me. Let's see if it passes CI too. Discovered while I worked on #150201. CC #128945

compiletest: Add `LineNumber` newtype to avoid `+1` magic here and there Start small. If it works well we can increase usage bit by bit as time passes. My main motivation for doing this is to get rid of the `+ 1` I otherwise have to add in rust-lang#150201 on this line: ```rs crate::directives::line::line_directive(file, zero_based_line_no + 1, &line) ``` But I think this is a nice general improvement by itself. Note that we keep using "0" to represent "no specific line" because changing to `Option<LineNumber>` everywhere is a very noisy and significant change. That _can_ be changed later if wanted, but let's not do it now.

Rollup merge of #150205 - Enselic:line-no, r=Zalathar,jieyouxu compiletest: Add `LineNumber` newtype to avoid `+1` magic here and there Start small. If it works well we can increase usage bit by bit as time passes. My main motivation for doing this is to get rid of the `+ 1` I otherwise have to add in #150201 on this line: ```rs crate::directives::line::line_directive(file, zero_based_line_no + 1, &line) ``` But I think this is a nice general improvement by itself. Note that we keep using "0" to represent "no specific line" because changing to `Option<LineNumber>` everywhere is a very noisy and significant change. That _can_ be changed later if wanted, but let's not do it now.

…tests This not only reduces code duplication already, it also gives us revision parsing for free which we need in an upcoming commit.

…, `no-SingleUseConsts-mir-pass` To prevent the test from regressing both with and without `SingleUseConsts` MIR pass.

rustbot · 2025-12-23T14:36:52Z

r? @Zalathar

rustbot has assigned @Zalathar.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

rustbot · 2025-12-23T14:36:52Z

Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest

cc @jieyouxu

Zalathar · 2025-12-24T00:56:36Z

I'm a bit mixed on making debuginfo directives use DirectiveLine.

On one hand, it's clearly a a much-needed improvement to the debuginfo directive handling.

On the other hand, the reason I disconnected debuginfo from the main directive parser in the first place is that I didn't want to have to worry about the particular quirks of debuginfo directives when making overall improvements to directive parsing in general, and I fear that this might come up again in the future.

I think I'm tentatively OK with making debuginfo directives use DirectiveLine, under the condition that I might split them again in the future if necessary. But if that does happen, then at least debuginfo's separate directive parser will be a fork of some more up-to-date parsing code.

Enselic · 2026-01-03T15:08:12Z

@Zalathar In case you didn't notice my 👍 I would just like to say that that sounds good to me. Is there anything else you'd like me to change?

Zalathar · 2026-01-04T01:04:57Z

Sorry for the confusion; I'm not used to rustbot actually assigning reviews to me.

@bors r+

bors · 2026-01-04T01:05:00Z

📌 Commit 423a8dc has been approved by Zalathar

It is now in the queue for this repository.

…, r=Zalathar compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests And start using revisions in `tests/debuginfo/macro-stepping.rs` to prevent regressing both with and without `SingleUseConsts` MIR pass. I recommend commit-by-commit review. ## ~TODO~ - [x] Verify this more carefully. - [x] Possibly do some preparatory PRs before taking this PR out of draft. - [x] Rebase on rust-lang#150205 once merged so we don't have to add another "`+ 1`". ## CC CC `@Zalathar` since you might have opinions about that I expose a helper function to reduce duplication CC `@saethlin` since this is what we will use for `tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs` in rust-lang#147426 (in the same way I use it in `tests/debuginfo/macro-stepping.rs` here)

Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - #150201 (compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests) - #150225 (Weekly `cargo update`) - #150642 (mutex.rs: remove needless-maybe-unsized bounds) - #150658 (Clarify panic conditions in `Iterator::last`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - #150201 (compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests) - #150642 (mutex.rs: remove needless-maybe-unsized bounds) - #150643 (vec in-place-drop: avoid creating an intermediate slice) - #150650 (Forbid generic parameters in types of #[type_const] items) - #150658 (Clarify panic conditions in `Iterator::last`) - #150659 (Add missing translator resources for interface parse_cfg and parse_check_cfg) - #150666 (Fix ambig-unambig-ty-and-consts link) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

Rollup merge of #150201 - Enselic:debugger-tests-revisions-2, r=Zalathar compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests And start using revisions in `tests/debuginfo/macro-stepping.rs` to prevent regressing both with and without `SingleUseConsts` MIR pass. I recommend commit-by-commit review. ## ~TODO~ - [x] Verify this more carefully. - [x] Possibly do some preparatory PRs before taking this PR out of draft. - [x] Rebase on #150205 once merged so we don't have to add another "`+ 1`". ## CC CC ``@Zalathar`` since you might have opinions about that I expose a helper function to reduce duplication CC ``@saethlin`` since this is what we will use for `tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs` in #147426 (in the same way I use it in `tests/debuginfo/macro-stepping.rs` here)

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

Enselic force-pushed the debugger-tests-revisions-2 branch from e25c6c9 to a63fee8Compare December 20, 2025 17:13

This was referenced Dec 20, 2025
compiletest: Add LineNumber newtype to avoid +1 magic here and there #150205
Merged
tests/debuginfo/function-arg-initialization.rs: Stop disabling SingleUseConsts MIR pass #150210
Merged

Enselic added 3 commits December 23, 2025 15:33

compiletest: Use DirectiveLine also for debuginfo (read: debugger) …
f186dad
…tests This not only reduces code duplication already, it also gives us revision parsing for free which we need in an upcoming commit.

compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests
4516dac

tests/debuginfo/macro-stepping.rs: Add revisions default-mir-passes…
423a8dc
…, `no-SingleUseConsts-mir-pass` To prevent the test from regressing both with and without `SingleUseConsts` MIR pass.

Enselic force-pushed the debugger-tests-revisions-2 branch from a63fee8 to 423a8dcCompare December 23, 2025 14:35

Enselic marked this pull request as ready for review December 23, 2025 14:36

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Dec 23, 2025

rustbot assigned Zalathar Dec 23, 2025

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Dec 23, 2025

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 4, 2026

jhpratt mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2026
Rollup of 4 pull requests #150661
Closed

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2026
Rollup of 7 pull requests #150669
Merged

bors merged commit 336c665 into rust-lang:mainJan 4, 2026
11 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.94.0 milestone Jan 4, 2026

Enselic mentioned this pull request Jan 5, 2026
tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs: Add revisions default-mir-passes, no-SingleUseConsts-mir-pass#147426
Merged

github-actionsBot mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2026
Toolchain upgrade to nightly-2026-02-09 flux-rs/flux#1345
Closed

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests - #150201

compiletest: Support revisions in debuginfo (read: debugger) tests#150201
bors merged 3 commits into
rust-lang:mainfrom
Enselic:debugger-tests-revisions-2

Enselic commented Dec 20, 2025•
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rustbot commented Dec 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Dec 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Zalathar commented Dec 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Enselic commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Zalathar commented Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

Enselic commented Dec 20, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

TODO

CC

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rustbot commented Dec 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Dec 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Zalathar commented Dec 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Enselic commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Zalathar commented Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Enselic commented Dec 20, 2025•
edited
Loading