Performance issue when throwing errors that have stackTraceLimit = 0

[jrmdayn]

Describe the bug

When setting Error.stackTraceLimit = 0 in a custom error and throwing it inside a test, the time it takes for vitest to display the error is proportional to the size of the object passed (size of the message string).
In the example below, you can change the value of object size and see in the console that it takes more and more time to return. You can also comment the line Error.stackTraceLimit = 0 to see that the problem disappears.
On my machine, vitest just hangs after a certain size and I have to kill the process manually.
Note that I am using an external library that throws errors with a stackTraceLimit of 0, so I do not control this on my end.

Reproduction

https://stackblitz.com/edit/vitest-dev-vitest-edo7vt?file=test%2Fbasic.test.ts

System Info

from stackblitz:

System:
    OS: Linux 5.0 undefined
    CPU: (8) x64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9880H CPU @ 2.30GHz
    Memory: 0 Bytes / 0 Bytes
    Shell: 1.0 - /bin/jsh
  Binaries:
    Node: 18.20.3 - /usr/local/bin/node
    Yarn: 1.22.19 - /usr/local/bin/yarn
    npm: 10.2.3 - /usr/local/bin/npm
    pnpm: 8.15.6 - /usr/local/bin/pnpm
  npmPackages:
    @vitest/ui: latest => 1.6.0 
    vite: latest => 5.3.3 
    vitest: latest => 1.6.0

Used Package Manager

npm

Validations

• Follow our Code of Conduct
• Read the Contributing Guidelines.
• Read the docs.
• Check that there isn't already an issue that reports the same bug to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Check that this is a concrete bug. For Q&A open a GitHub Discussion or join our Discord Chat Server.
• The provided reproduction is a minimal reproducible example of the bug.

[AriPerkkio]

regexr.com/82i8b

vitest/packages/utils/src/source-map.ts

Lines 90 to 91 in 354fb9d

	// eslint-disable-next-line regexp/no-super-linear-backtracking, regexp/optimal-quantifier-concatenation
	const functionNameRegex = /((.*".+"[^@]*)?[^@]*)(@)/

With const objectSize = 40; in the test case this gets really bad:

[jrmdayn]

@AriPerkkio @userquin - how can we move forward with PR #6123?
I really appreciate your efforts trying to fix the problem 🙏 🙏