Improve tests for #[track_caller] in async

[theemathas]

Tracking issue for async_fn_track_caller: #110011

Tracking issue for closure_track_caller: #87417

I recommend reviewing each commit individually.

cc @RalfJung, who requested the test to be added to Miri.

---

For your convenience, below is the output of diff tests/ui/async-await/track-caller/panic-track-caller.rs src/tools/miri/tests/pass/async-panic-track-caller.rs:

2c2
< // src/tools/miri/tests/pass/async-panic-track-caller.rs
---
> // tests/ui/async-await/track-caller/panic-track-caller.rs
4,6d3
< // FIXME: catch_unwind is broken in gcc. Will be fixed in the next rustc_codegen_gcc sync.
< //@ ignore-backends: gcc
< //@ run-pass
9,10c6,10
< //@ needs-unwind
< // gate-test-async_fn_track_caller
---
> //
> //
> //
> //
> // Padding comment so that the line numbers are the same as panic-track-caller.rs
58a59
> #[cfg_attr(any(cls, nofeat), expect(ungated_async_fn_track_caller))]
60d60
< //[cls,nofeat]~^ WARN `#[track_caller]` on async functions is a no-op
72a73
>     #[cfg_attr(any(cls, nofeat), expect(ungated_async_fn_track_caller))]
74d74
<     //[cls,nofeat]~^ WARN `#[track_caller]` on async functions is a no-op
107a108
> #[cfg_attr(any(cls, nofeat), expect(ungated_async_fn_track_caller))]
109d109
< //[cls,nofeat]~^ WARN `#[track_caller]` on async functions is a no-op

[rustbot]

miri is developed in its own repository. If the Miri part of this change can be broken out, consider making this change to rust-lang/miri instead. However, if Miri needs adjusting for rustc changes, just ignore this message.

cc @rust-lang/miri

[rustbot]

r? @ShoyuVanilla

rustbot has assigned @ShoyuVanilla.
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:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 75 candidates
• Random selection from 20 candidates

[theemathas]

Excluded the gcc backend from a test as per @antoyo's advice

[RalfJung]

Suggested change

	//
	//@ run-native

to ensure the line numbers are indeed correct according to regular rustc

View changes since the review