Support inlining functions with KT-28064 style objects

Namely, anonymous objects defined in lambdas that have all captured
variables as loose fields instead of a single reference to the parent.

The question is, when a lambda inside an inline function defines an
anonymous object, and that object is not regenerated during codegen for
the inline function itself, but then has to be regenerated at call site
anyway, do we use an outer `this` or loose capture fields? For example,
before KT-28064:

    inline fun f1(g: () -> Unit) = object { g() }
    // -> f1$1 { $g: () -> Unit }
    inline fun f2(g: () -> Unit) = f1 { object { g() } }
    // -> f2$$inlined$f1$1 { $g: () -> Unit }
    //    f2$$inlined$f1$1$lambda$1 { this$0: f2$$inlined$f1$1 }
    inline fun f3(g: () -> Unit) = f2 { object { g() } }
    // -> f3$$inlined$f2$1 { $g: () -> Unit }
    //    f3$$inlined$f2$1$1 { this$0: f3$$inlined$f2$1 }
    //    f3$$inlined$f2$1$1$lambda$1 { this$0: f3$$inlined$f2$1$1 }

After KT-28064:

    inline fun f2(g: () -> Unit) = f1 { object { g() } }
    // -> f2$$inlined$f1$1 { $g: () -> Unit }
    //    f2$1$1 { $g: () -> Unit }
    inline fun f3(g: () -> Unit) = f2 { object { g() } }
    // -> f3$$inlined$f2$1 { $g: () -> Unit }
    //    f3$$inlined$f2$2 { ??? }
    //    f3$1$1 { $g: () -> Unit }

Should `???` be `this$0: f3$$inlined$f2$1` or `$g: () -> Unit`? This
commit chooses the latter for KT-28064 bytecode and keeps `this$0` when
inlining the old bytecode.

compiler/testData/codegen/bytecodeText/kt10259_2.kt

@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-// IGNORE_BACKEND: JVM_IR
 fun box(): String {
     var encl1 = "fail";
     test {