Use assert_unchecked instead of assume intrinsic in the standard library

[joboet]

Now that a public wrapper for the assume intrinsic exists, we can use it in the standard library.

CC #119131

[rustbot]

r? @cuviper

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[cuviper]

Let's check since these are some perf-sensitive areas.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit fa9a911 with merge c412b31...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c412b31 (c412b310c15091ebaf06329163bfbce35cb862ef)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c412b31): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	2

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)	4.2%	[4.1%, 4.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.1%	[-6.1%, -2.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-6.1%, 4.3%]	6

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 663.655s -> 664.42s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 308.29 MiB -> 308.25 MiB (-0.01%)

[Nilstrieb]

< 855,631,981  ???:
   83,964,055    llvm::ConstantRange::multiply(llvm::ConstantRange const&) const
  -82,809,045    llvm::APInt::operator*(llvm::APInt const&) const
  -80,350,293    llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG()
  -74,448,936    (anonymous namespace)::ModuleBitcodeWriter::writeDICompositeType(llvm::DICompositeType const*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<unsigned long>&, unsigned int)
   72,695,458    llvm::BasicAAResult::alias(llvm::MemoryLocation const&, llvm::MemoryLocation const&, llvm::AAQueryInfo&, llvm::Instruction const*)
   59,936,189    llvm::SelectionDAG::LegalizeVectors()

Probably due to the additional IR having to be processed.. This seems fine to me though, the regression is really small on only two benchmarks. if wg-perf disagrees during triage, feel free to complain.
@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit fa9a911 has been approved by Nilstrieb

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit fa9a911 with merge 4f20ebe...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[joboet]

As nikic suggested, the codegen tests failed because debug-assertions are turned in some CI runners. They are now ignored in that case.

[cuviper]

@bors r=Nilstrieb,cuviper

[bors]

📌 Commit 638439a has been approved by Nilstrieb,cuviper

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 638439a with merge e35a56d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Nilstrieb,cuviper
Pushing e35a56d to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e35a56d): 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)	1.2%	[0.6%, 1.7%]	2
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)	4.2%	[1.9%, 7.7%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.9%	[-14.0%, -2.1%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-14.0%, 7.7%]	14

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.8%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, -0.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.6%, 0.2%]	10

Bootstrap: 662.56s -> 662.94s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 308.33 MiB -> 308.35 MiB (0.01%)