Update cdb annotations for some debuginfo tests with cdb 10.0.26100.2161

[jieyouxu]

GitHub CI runners recently updated to Windows Server 2022 (20241113) which included Windows Software Development Kit version 10.1.26100.1742, which transitively shipped a cdb version 10.0.26100.2161.

This changed some cdb output, causing 3 debuginfo tests to fail (see #133107, https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/242791-t-infra/topic/msvc.20update.20causing.20debuginfo.20failures):

tests\debuginfo\numeric-types.rs
tests\debuginfo\range-types.rs
tests\debuginfo\unit-type.rs

I updated cdb annotations for these 3 tests locally with a matching cdb version. However, I am not by any means a cdb expert nor debuginfo expert, I just reblessed the tests to match whatever the new cdb version produces to unblock the tree. It is certainly possible that debuginfo improved/regressed/both with the newer cdb version.

try-job: x86_64-msvc

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
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

[jieyouxu]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e70df09 with merge f0b30ab...

[jieyouxu]

Remark: // cdb-only had no effect, but this test only contained cdb so this really doesn't change anything.

[ChrisDenton]

r=me if try comes back green

[jieyouxu]

Looks like they passed.

test [debuginfo-cdb] tests\debuginfo\numeric-types.rs ... ok
test [debuginfo-cdb] tests\debuginfo\range-types.rs ... ok
test [debuginfo-cdb] tests\debuginfo\unit-type.rs ... ok

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f0b30ab (f0b30abab0ce27f5946baaa39dd1d7325e6f86c3)

[ChrisDenton]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit e70df09 has been approved by ChrisDenton

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

[jieyouxu]

@bors p=101 rollup=never

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e70df09 with merge f6afd1b...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[jieyouxu]

Genuine failure

error: check directive(s) from `C:\a\rust\rust\tests\debuginfo\numeric-types.rs` not found in debugger output. errors:
    (numeric-types.rs:86) `    [+0x000] __0              : 60 [Type: __int64]`
    (numeric-types.rs:110) `    [+0x000] __0              : 0x78 [Type: unsigned __int64]`

[jieyouxu]

Of course, isize is different on 32-bit platforms

[jieyouxu]

I'm going to mark this integer debuginfo test as //@ only-64bit to unblock the queue, proper fix can be a follow-up.

[jieyouxu]

@bors r=@ChrisDenton

[bors]

📌 Commit dccb6c0 has been approved by chrisdenton

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit dccb6c0 with merge f2a3542...

[cuviper]

Nominating because such environmental changes will probably affect beta and the 1.83 release too.

@rustbot label beta-nominated

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: chrisdenton
Pushing f2a3542 to master...

[saethlin]

@bors treeclosed-

[Zalathar]

I'm going to mark this integer debuginfo test as //@ only-64bit to unblock the queue, proper fix can be a follow-up.

Debuginfo commands used to support [rev], because they piggybacked on the main compiletest directive parser.

When I separated the debuginfo command parser from the compiletest directive parser in 1467dee, I didn't include revision support because it wasn't used by any tests that existed at the time.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f2a3542): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results (primary 4.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.3%	[4.3%, 4.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.3%	[4.3%, 4.3%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 788.11s -> 788.713s (0.08%)
Artifact size: 335.43 MiB -> 335.43 MiB (-0.00%)

[apiraino]

Beta backport accepted as per compiler team on Zulip. A backport PR will be authored by the release team at the end of the current development cycle.

@rustbot label +beta-accepted