Assert that ADTs have the right number of args

[compiler-errors]

We're doing it for many other types, let's also do ADTs 😇

[rustbot]

r? @estebank

rustbot has assigned @estebank.
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

[estebank]

Doesn't this have to account for Type { has_default: true, .. }? Either way, this seems reasonable but will require cleaning up the existing issues before it can land.

[compiler-errors]

Doesn't this have to account for Type { has_default: true, .. }?

No, default type parameters have been expanded already. The only bug I can find (the one triggering those failures) is because we explicitly create an Adt with no substs in coherence for some reason. I'm ui-testing the fix right now.

[fmease]

Ah lol, thanks :) I encountered this in #117164 and was a bit weirded out by it, glad it's gone.

[compiler-errors]

💀

[estebank]

r=me

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=estebank

CI was green before I pushed the last commit, so I'll just approve this now.

[bors]

📌 Commit f487d83 has been approved by estebank

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f487d83 with merge 40116ad...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: estebank
Pushing 40116ad to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (40116ad): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.5%, 0.7%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 669.392s -> 668.22s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 315.78 MiB -> 315.77 MiB (-0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

I only touched code on debug mode and on the error path 🤨

[Mark-Simulacrum]

This looks within (recently higher likelihood) typical bimodality on these benchmarks. Marking as triaged.