tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs: Remove ignore-aarch64

[Enselic]

This test passes for me both with gdb and lldb when I run it on an aarch64 machine (namely dev-desktop-eu-1).

And as can be seen below, it now passes PR CI, including aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1.
This test used to fail PR CI, in particular aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-1.

I suggest we put this in a rollup as an iffy PR to see if we can get it through. If we can, we are one step closer towards closing #33013.

[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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Fallback group: @Mark-Simulacrum, @jieyouxu
• @Mark-Simulacrum, @jieyouxu expanded to Mark-Simulacrum, jieyouxu
• Random selection from Mark-Simulacrum, jieyouxu

[Enselic]

@bors rollup=iffy (see PR description)

[mati865]

Looks like we have an empty queue ATM.

@bors r+ rollup=never

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit a27fdfb has been approved by mati865

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: mati865
Duration: 3h 10m 50s
Pushing 79d2026 to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing e0a8361 (parent) -> 79d2026 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 8 test diffs

Stage 2

• [debuginfo-gdb] tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs#default-mir-passes: ignore (ignored when the architecture is aarch64 (Doesn't work yet.)) -> pass (J0)
• [debuginfo-gdb] tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs#no-SingleUseConsts-mir-pass: ignore (ignored when the architecture is aarch64 (Doesn't work yet.)) -> pass (J0)
• [debuginfo-cdb] tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs#default-mir-passes: ignore (ignored when the architecture is aarch64 (Doesn't work yet.)) -> pass (J1)
• [debuginfo-cdb] tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs#no-SingleUseConsts-mir-pass: ignore (ignored when the architecture is aarch64 (Doesn't work yet.)) -> pass (J1)
• [debuginfo-lldb] tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs#default-mir-passes: ignore (ignored when the architecture is aarch64 (Doesn't work yet.)) -> pass (J2)
• [debuginfo-lldb] tests/debuginfo/basic-stepping.rs#no-SingleUseConsts-mir-pass: ignore (ignored when the architecture is aarch64 (Doesn't work yet.)) -> pass (J2)

Additionally, 2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1
• J1: aarch64-msvc-1
• J2: aarch64-apple

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 79d2026ae87386ccbe8fc729d130e5e298959a48 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. pr-check-1: 32m 28s -> 27m 52s (-14.2%)
2. dist-x86_64-apple: 1h 59m -> 1h 44m (-12.5%)
3. i686-gnu-2: 1h 41m -> 1h 29m (-12.0%)
4. dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw: 1h 58m -> 1h 44m (-11.9%)
5. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 1h 8m -> 1h 1m (-10.9%)
6. dist-x86_64-musl: 2h 2m -> 2h 13m (+9.3%)
7. x86_64-gnu-miri: 1h 32m -> 1h 24m (-9.2%)
8. x86_64-msvc-ext2: 1h 53m -> 1h 43m (-9.0%)
9. x86_64-msvc-2: 2h 35m -> 2h 22m (-8.6%)
10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2: 1h 42m -> 1h 34m (-8.0%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (79d2026): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 3.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[1.7%, 5.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 4.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.0%	[2.4%, 5.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, 0.0%]	12

Bootstrap: 480.839s -> 481.027s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 396.90 MiB -> 394.83 MiB (-0.52%)

[Zalathar]

This test failed in a later PR at #153935 (comment), so I'm worried that the test might be flaky.

[Enselic]

Looks like that failure was because the process terminated while we were stepping through the code :

ntdll!NtTerminateProcess+0x4:
00007ff9`96d31304 d65f03c0 ret
0:000>  p
        ^ No runnable debuggees error in ' p'

Not sure what to make of it.

If the flakiness remains, we should probably not do a full revert, but instead just ignore aarch64-windows. I'll try to prepare a PR for that, so we have one ready if needed.

Edit:
Here it is: #153939