Consolidate panicking functions in slice/index.rs

[Kmeakin]

Consolidate all the panicking functions in slice/index.rs to use a single slice_index_fail function, similar to how it is done in str/traits.rs.

Split off from #145024

[rustbot]

r? @jhpratt

rustbot has assigned @jhpratt.
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

[rustbot]

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

[xizheyin]

Thanks for the code. You could try ./x test codegen-llvm to test it locally first.
https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tests/intro.html

[Kmeakin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

@Kmeakin: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

[jhpratt]

I'm not convinced that this is an improvement, but on the other hand optimizations are weird.

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: fa10c86 (fa10c86b130152ce0be5ff020bd92275c432f6b5, parent: fce0e74720d199eb7839fdb51af35ac5226da178)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fa10c86): 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)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, -0.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.2%, 1.0%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.6%, secondary -2.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[1.1%, 4.9%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.8%	[-3.8%, -3.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-4.5%, -2.5%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[-3.8%, 4.9%]	5

Cycles

Results (primary 2.6%, secondary 3.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[2.4%, 6.6%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.4%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, -0.0%]	33
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	41
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.4%]	46

Bootstrap: 464.993s -> 463.159s (-0.39%)
Artifact size: 377.36 MiB -> 377.58 MiB (0.06%)

[jhpratt]

While it's marked as a regression, it seems to be a very minor improvement in my eyes. But I'm no expert. cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance for a second opinion. r=me if the perf is fine.

[Kobzol]

It's a wash, at least in terms of compile perf.

@bors r=jhpratt

[bors]

📌 Commit 5c0421d has been approved by jhpratt

It is now in the queue for this repository.