We don't consider it a bug that users can't break on initialization of
some non-zero sized types (see comment on `maximally-steppable` at the
top of the file), so it does not make sense to consider it a bug that
users can't break on initialization of some zero-sized types.
Some optimization passes _improve_ compile times [1]. So we want to run
some passes even with `-Copt-level=0`. That means that some of the lines
in the test can be optimized away. To make regression testing more
robust, we also want to run the test with such passes disabled. The
solution is to use two revisions. One with default `-Copt-level=0`
passes, and one "even less optimized", with enough optimization passes
disabled to keep the maximum number of lines steppable.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/319
So that when we later add support for revisions we can use the same
syntax for revisions as elsewhere.
This also prevents people from making typos for commands since
`src/tools/compiletest/src/directives/directive_names.rs` will catch such
typos now.
Note that we one FIXME for a non-trivial change for later:
```
// FIXME(148097): Change `// cdb-checksimple_closure` to `//@ cdb-check:simple_closure`
```
To make debugger stepping intuitive with `-Copt-level=0`. See the
adjusted `basic-stepping.rs` test.
This is kind of a revert of bd0aae92dc, except we don't revert it,
we just make it conditional on `opt-level`. That commit regressed
`basic-stepping.rs`, but it was not noticed since that test did not
exist back then. I have retroactively bisected to find that out.
It seems messy to sprinkle if-cases inside of the
`write_operand_repeatedly()` so make the whole function conditional.
The test that bd0aae92dc added in
`tests/codegen/issues/issue-111603.rs` already use `-Copt-level=3`, so
we don't need to adjust the compiler flags for it to keep passing.
Martin Nordholts