Add cfg(debug_assertions) to CurrentDepGraph debug fields

[mzacho]

The change cascades down to the use sites of the fields.

After the change then dep_graph::serialized::Stat.kind is
dead code in non-debug builds, and it turns out it can be removed
entirely, since its value can be read from a HashMap key at the
only use site of the field.

[rustbot]

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
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

[jieyouxu]

I'm missing context for this, so r? incremental

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit a4ef424 with merge 12a17c2...

[klensy]

Is -Zincremental-info=yes works after this pr?

[lqd]

not without debug assertions

[klensy]

not without debug assertions

Then this pr breaks nightly flag. Wrong cfg's or this was intended?

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 12a17c2 (12a17c2edf248310b207a5dc0c9c7ca2584ba2b7)

[mzacho]

Then this pr breaks nightly flag. Wrong cfg's or this was intended?

Unintended, thanks. Updated the PR so -Z incremental-info should work as before.

[lqd]

Won’t there be no data without debug assertions?

[mzacho]

For the total edge reads and total duplicate edge reads, yes, but those fields are currently also only written to (and printed) when cfg!(debug_assertions) :)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (12a17c2): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 1.6%)

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)	1.6%	[1.6%, 1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 6.7%)

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)	6.7%	[6.7%, 6.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 763.215s -> 764.132s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 326.11 MiB -> 326.07 MiB (-0.01%)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #136471) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.