cmd/compile: ignore OXXX nodes in closure captured vars list

cmd/compile: ignore OXXX nodes in closure captured vars list

Added a debug flag "-d closure" to explain compilation of
closures (should this be done some other way? Should we
rewrite the "-m" flag to "-d escapes"?)  Used this to
discover that cause was an OXXX node in the captured vars
list, and in turn noticed that OXXX nodes are explicitly
ignored in all other processing of captured variables.

Couldn't figure out a reproducer, did verify that this OXXX
was not caused by an unnamed return value (which is one use
of these).  Verified lack of heap allocation by examining -S
output.

Assembly:
(runtime/mgc.go:1371) PCDATA $0, $2
(runtime/mgc.go:1371) CALL "".notewakeup(SB)
(runtime/mgc.go:1377) LEAQ "".gcBgMarkWorker.func1·f(SB), AX
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) MOVQ AX, (SP)
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) MOVQ "".autotmp_2242+88(SP), CX
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) MOVQ CX, 8(SP)
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) LEAQ go.string."GC worker (idle)"(SB), AX
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) MOVQ AX, 16(SP)
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) MOVQ $16, 24(SP)
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) MOVB $20, 32(SP)
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) MOVQ $0, 40(SP)
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) PCDATA $0, $2
(runtime/mgc.go:1404) CALL "".gopark(SB)

Added a check for compiling_runtime to ensure that this is
caught in the future.  Added a test to test the check.
Verified that 1.5.3 did NOT reject the test case when
compiled with -+ flag, so this is not a recently added bug.

Cause of bug is two-part -- there was no leaking closure
detection ever, and instead it relied on capture-of-variables
to trigger compiling_runtime test, but closures improved in
1.5.3 so that mere capture of a value did not also capture
the variable, which thus allowed closures to escape, as well
as this case where the escape was spurious.  In
fixedbugs/issue14999.go, compare messages for f and g;
1.5.3 would reject g, but not f.  1.4 rejects both because
1.4 heap-allocates parameter x for both.

Fixes #14999.

Change-Id: I40bcdd27056810628e96763a44f2acddd503aee1
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/21322
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>