Convert debug_assert to assert in CachingSourceMapView

[Aaron1011]

I suspect that there's a bug somewhere in this code, which is
leading to the predicates_of ICE being seen in #89035

[rust-highfive]

r? @oli-obk

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Aaron1011]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 95bea15 with merge edbbd49b6a668185b0a5eeb98938dc9f09ca9ffb...

[klensy]

This code smelling, in my point of view. We could use native rust types instead -1 as special value.

rust/compiler/rustc_span/src/caching_source_map_view.rs

Lines 235 to 243 in e0c38af

	fn cache_entry_index(&self, pos: BytePos) -> isize {
	for (idx, cache_entry) in self.line_cache.iter().enumerate() {
	if cache_entry.line.contains(&pos) {
	return idx as isize;
	}
	}
	-1
	}

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: edbbd49b6a668185b0a5eeb98938dc9f09ca9ffb (edbbd49b6a668185b0a5eeb98938dc9f09ca9ffb)

[rust-timer]

Queued edbbd49b6a668185b0a5eeb98938dc9f09ca9ffb with parent e0c38af, future comparison URL.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

r=me presuming perf isn't terrible

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (edbbd49b6a668185b0a5eeb98938dc9f09ca9ffb): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to small relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Small improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.4% on full builds of deeply-nested-closures)
• Small regression in instruction counts (up to 0.3% on incr-patched: println builds of coercions)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

[Aaron1011]

@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

📌 Commit 95bea15 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 95bea15 with merge 5ecc8ad...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 5ecc8ad to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5ecc8ad): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes.

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

[pnkfelix]

Visiting for performance triage.

Got:

• Small improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.4% on full builds of helloworld)

Perhaps noise, but 🎉 nonetheless. :)