WF-check struct field types at construction site

[camelid]

Fixes #126272.
Fixes #127299.

Rustc of course already WF-checked the field types at the definition
site, but for error tainting of consts to work properly, there needs to
be an error emitted at the use site. Previously, with no use-site error,
we proceeded with CTFE and ran into ICEs since we are running code with
type errors.

Emitting use-site errors also brings struct-like constructors more in
line with fn-like constructors since they already emit use-site errors
for WF issues.

r? @BoxyUwU

[camelid]

The new version of this label actually makes more sense.

[camelid]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[camelid]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2f4603b with merge d0df6ac...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d0df6ac (d0df6ac3204ae61d337a6acd52757130dd57856c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d0df6ac): 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 (primary -2.4%)

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)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.9%	[-6.9%, -1.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-6.9%, 0.6%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary -6.5%)

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)	-6.5%	[-6.5%, -6.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 761.437s -> 760.375s (-0.14%)
Artifact size: 336.80 MiB -> 336.93 MiB (0.04%)

[BoxyUwU]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 2f4603b has been approved by BoxyUwU

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2f4603b with merge 19469cb...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: BoxyUwU
Pushing 19469cb to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (19469cb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and 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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.1%)

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-4.8%, -3.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 763.399s -> 762.097s (-0.17%)
Artifact size: 339.30 MiB -> 339.28 MiB (-0.00%)