In #125958 (a PR which changes the way consts are handled in the compiler, and thus alters details like their hashing, etc.) a few lines were trimmed out of a debuginfo test because it was unreasonable to get it to work, despite the function names seemingly being present.
It seems like there might be a bug in the way that the debuginfo test suite handles [...]? Or it might incorrectly treat certain checks as ordering-sensitive, when hashing can change orders? It's unclear, but in any case, undesirable.
This mostly affected the Windows variant of the test.
In #125958 (a PR which changes the way consts are handled in the compiler, and thus alters details like their hashing, etc.) a few lines were trimmed out of a debuginfo test because it was unreasonable to get it to work, despite the function names seemingly being present.
It seems like there might be a bug in the way that the debuginfo test suite handles
[...]? Or it might incorrectly treat certain checks as ordering-sensitive, when hashing can change orders? It's unclear, but in any case, undesirable.This mostly affected the Windows variant of the test.