Make some assertions in solver into debug assertions

[compiler-errors]

These may or may not be expensive :>

r? lcnr

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 905fc0a with merge 4ebc75d...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4ebc75d (4ebc75d7e8da5fb25509150a501b953b7d169b4e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4ebc75d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.1%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -5.4%)

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.4%	[-5.4%, -5.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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: 780.158s -> 777.206s (-0.38%)
Artifact size: 366.33 MiB -> 366.36 MiB (0.01%)

[compiler-errors]

one percent 💀

[compiler-errors]

r? lcnr

[rustbot]

Requested reviewer is already assigned to this pull request.

Please choose another assignee.

[lcnr]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 905fc0a has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 905fc0a with merge 1c0849d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 1c0849d to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 1ac1950 (parent) -> 1c0849d (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 1c0849d8bae6f1af08a8b64a011b2ffa7c24f136 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-aarch64-linux: 5413.8s -> 6452.8s (19.2%)
2. dist-i686-mingw: 7994.1s -> 8960.3s (12.1%)
3. dist-apple-various: 7396.2s -> 8182.6s (10.6%)
4. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-2: 6906.7s -> 6261.5s (-9.3%)
5. dist-x86_64-mingw: 8194.7s -> 7776.6s (-5.1%)
6. aarch64-apple: 5092.4s -> 5344.1s (4.9%)
7. dist-x86_64-msvc: 6185.6s -> 6490.4s (4.9%)
8. x86_64-apple-2: 6373.4s -> 6677.4s (4.8%)
9. mingw-check: 1309.4s -> 1253.3s (-4.3%)
10. x86_64-mingw-1: 8777.8s -> 9121.7s (3.9%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1c0849d): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.1%, -0.2%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.6%)

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[0.5%, 2.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-3.6%, -0.4%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.0%)

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[0.7%, 2.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.6%, -0.4%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 370.32 MiB -> 370.26 MiB (-0.02%)