Adjust dbg.value/dbg.declare checks for LLVM update

[aeubanks]

llvm/llvm-project#89799 changes llvm.dbg.value/declare intrinsics to be in a different, out-of-instruction-line representation. For example
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(...)
becomes
#dbg_declare(...)

Update tests accordingly to work with both the old and new way.

[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

[aeubanks]

@rustbot label: + llvm-main
r? @durin42

[rustbot]

Error: Parsing relabel command in comment failed: ...' label: +' | error: empty label at >| ' llvm-main'...

Please file an issue on GitHub at triagebot if there's a problem with this bot, or reach out on #t-infra on Zulip.

[aeubanks]

@rustbot label: +llvm-main
r? @durin42

[rustbot]

Could not assign reviewer from: durin42.
User(s) durin42 are either the PR author, already assigned, or on vacation, and there are no other candidates.
Use r? to specify someone else to assign.

[durin42]

That is...exactly the cursed FileCheck hackery I didn't want to spend the brainpower on. Many many thanks.

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 6c348ac has been approved by durin42

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6c348ac with merge 5ae5d13...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: durin42
Pushing 5ae5d13 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5ae5d13): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.4%, 1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[4.2%, 4.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Cycles

Results

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.9%, 4.0%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-3.1%, -1.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-3.1%, -1.3%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 675.496s -> 673.849s (-0.24%)
Artifact size: 315.97 MiB -> 315.95 MiB (-0.01%)