Call module_name_to_str instead of just unwrapping

[saethlin]

This makes the ICE message in #130678 more clear. It looks like not calling this function was just an oversight in #76859, but clearly not a major one because it's taken us 4 years to notice.

try-job: i686-msvc

[rustbot]

r? @cjgillot

rustbot has assigned @cjgillot.
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]

Thanks!

[jieyouxu]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 6419aeb has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[GuillaumeGomez]

I wonder if this is the one which failed in #130695.

[saethlin]

That's an exotic failure mode. Let's see!

@bors try

[bors]

🙅 Please do not try after a pull request has been r+ed. If you need to try, unapprove (r-) it first.

[saethlin]

@bors r-

[saethlin]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 6419aeb with merge b0f3400...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b0f3400 (b0f3400b7b7ef8b7c91aadf23ce3ba66c658f382)

[saethlin]

Well. Having looked through the other PRs in that rollup I agree with @GuillaumeGomez that nothing else in there looks related. But also I cannot explain how this PR would corrupt a DenseMap, and we just passed a try build for the job that failed, so either this PR is fine or the failure is nondeterministic.

@bors r=jieyouxu rollup=never just in case this needs to be reverted or fails again

[bors]

📌 Commit 6419aeb has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6419aeb with merge d14c1c7...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing d14c1c7 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d14c1c7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary -0.8%)

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)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.7%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-2.5%, 3.1%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 3.1%)

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)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.5%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.0%, 4.2%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.5%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 769.792s -> 770.325s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 341.51 MiB -> 341.57 MiB (0.02%)