Optimize indexing slices and strs with inclusive ranges

[Kmeakin]

Instead of separately checking for end == usize::MAX and end + 1 > slice.len(), we can check for end >= slice.len(). Also consolidate all the slice indexing related panic functions into a single function which reports the correct error depending on the arguments, as the str indexing code already does.

The downside of all this is that the panic message is slightly less specific when trying to index with [..=usize::MAX]: instead of saying "attempted to index slice up to maximum usize" it just says "range end index {end} out of range for slice of length {len}". But this is a rare enough case that I think it is acceptable

[rustbot]

r? @ibraheemdev

rustbot has assigned @ibraheemdev.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[scottmcm]

As you saw from the PR build failure, if you're touching things like slice_index_order_fail you'll need to look through every mention of those in the repo -- there are a bunch of codegen tests that look for their absence, and you need to make sure that you don't make those tests useless by renaming what they're looking for.

(You probably also need to re-bless some MIR tests that include indexing.)

[rustbot]

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit bd63d02 with merge 4249615…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 4249615 (4249615ebb47450f368b974f339d722beb35f600, parent: ca77504943887037504c7fc0b9bf06dab3910373)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4249615): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-2.9%, -0.0%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -4.0%, secondary 2.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[2.0%, 5.4%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.9%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.5%, secondary -1.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.5%	[2.3%, 2.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.7%, 2.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.2%	[-7.2%, -1.4%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.5%	[2.3%, 2.7%]	2

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	18
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	35
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, 0.5%]	19

Bootstrap: 463.988s -> 464.596s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 377.65 MiB -> 377.38 MiB (-0.07%)