Clamp instead of asserting in FileEncoder::write_with

[saethlin]

r? @WaffleLapkin

If this isn't the regression mentioned in #115542 (comment) I'd have to actually look into it.

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4a17971 with merge af63746...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: af63746 (af637469c05c6cbe82a24da7cb3c3fd6b8879af2)

[lqd]

@rust-timer build af63746

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (af63746): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

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-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	19
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1

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: 631.857s -> 630.663s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 317.04 MiB -> 317.00 MiB (-0.01%)

[WaffleLapkin]

haven't caught it during the original review, but if we'll leave this in, this funciton should probably return !

[saethlin]

The point of this PR was to figure out if this is the regression in question. The perf report above says it isn't.

It's upsetting that this makes things slower but it's cool that we now know the assertion doesn't have runtime cost compared to the sound alternatives.