Fix overflow checking in range patterns

[Nadrieril]

When a range pattern contains an overflowing literal, if we're not careful we might not notice the overflow and use the wrapped value. This makes for confusing error messages because linting against overflowing literals is only done in a later pass. So when a range is invalid we check for overflows to provide a better error.

This check didn't use to handle negative types; this PR fixes that. First commit adds tests, second cleans up without changing behavior, third does the fix.

EDIT: while I was at it, I fixed a small annoyance about the span of the overflow lint on negated literals.

Fixes #94239

[rustbot]

r? @davidtwco

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r? @oli-obk

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit dcdddb7 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit dcdddb7 with merge 71704c4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 71704c4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (71704c4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.6%	[1.6%, 1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	1

Cycles

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)	3.6%	[3.0%, 4.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 628.239s -> 627.902s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 271.29 MiB -> 271.29 MiB (-0.00%)