===(), ===(x) and typeassert() cause internal error when compiled

[Liozou]

This is a very minor issue since these three forms are supposed to cause an explicit error anyway, but I guess it should not cause an internal one.

julia> ===() # This works normally
ERROR: ArgumentError: ===: too few arguments (expected 2)
Stacktrace:
 [1] top-level scope
   @ REPL[38]:1

julia> foo() = ===()
foo (generic function with 1 method)

julia> foo()
Internal error: encountered unexpected error in runtime:
BoundsError(a=Array{Any, (1,)}[Main.:(===)], i=(2,))
jl_bounds_error_ints at ~/julia/src/rtutils.c:186
getindex at ./array.jl:833 [inlined]
getfield_elim_pass! at ./compiler/ssair/passes.jl:596
run_passes at ./compiler/ssair/driver.jl:133
optimize at ./compiler/optimize.jl:296 [inlined]
_typeinf at ./compiler/typeinfer.jl:255
typeinf at ./compiler/typeinfer.jl:209
typeinf_ext at ./compiler/typeinfer.jl:911
typeinf_ext_toplevel at ./compiler/typeinfer.jl:944
typeinf_ext_toplevel at ./compiler/typeinfer.jl:940
jfptr_typeinf_ext_toplevel_13423 at ~/julia/usr/lib/julia/sys.so (unknown line)
_jl_invoke at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2243 [inlined]
jl_apply_generic at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2425
jl_apply at ~/julia/src/julia.h:1760 [inlined]
jl_type_infer at ~/julia/src/gf.c:295
jl_generate_fptr at ~/julia/src/jitlayers.cpp:340
jl_compile_method_internal at ~/julia/src/gf.c:1976
jl_compile_method_internal at ~/julia/src/gf.c:1930 [inlined]
_jl_invoke at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2235 [inlined]
jl_apply_generic at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2425
jl_apply at ~/julia/src/julia.h:1760 [inlined]
do_call at ~/julia/src/interpreter.c:117
eval_value at ~/julia/src/interpreter.c:206
eval_stmt_value at ~/julia/src/interpreter.c:157 [inlined]
eval_body at ~/julia/src/interpreter.c:571
jl_interpret_toplevel_thunk at ~/julia/src/interpreter.c:718
top-level scope at REPL[2]:1
jl_toplevel_eval_flex at ~/julia/src/toplevel.c:884
jl_toplevel_eval_flex at ~/julia/src/toplevel.c:829
jl_toplevel_eval_in at ~/julia/src/toplevel.c:936
eval at ./boot.jl:369 [inlined]
eval_user_input at ~/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.7/REPL/src/REPL.jl:148
repl_backend_loop at ~/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.7/REPL/src/REPL.jl:238
start_repl_backend at ~/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.7/REPL/src/REPL.jl:223
#run_repl#45 at ~/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.7/REPL/src/REPL.jl:356
run_repl at ~/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.7/REPL/src/REPL.jl:343
_jl_invoke at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2243 [inlined]
jl_apply_generic at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2425
#894 at ./client.jl:394
jfptr_YY.894_25747 at ~/julia/usr/lib/julia/sys.so (unknown line)
_jl_invoke at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2243 [inlined]
jl_apply_generic at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2425
jl_apply at ~/julia/src/julia.h:1760 [inlined]
jl_f__call_latest at ~/julia/src/builtins.c:751
#invokelatest#2 at ./essentials.jl:726 [inlined]
invokelatest at ./essentials.jl:724 [inlined]
run_main_repl at ./client.jl:379
exec_options at ./client.jl:309
_start at ./client.jl:495
jfptr__start_31938 at ~/julia/usr/lib/julia/sys.so (unknown line)
_jl_invoke at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2243 [inlined]
jl_apply_generic at ~/julia/src/gf.c:2425
jl_apply at ~/julia/src/julia.h:1760 [inlined]
true_main at ~/julia/src/jlapi.c:540
jl_repl_entrypoint at ~/julia/src/jlapi.c:682
main at ~/julia/cli/loader_exe.c:51
__libc_start_main at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (unknown line)
_start at /home/liozou/julia/usr/bin/julia (unknown line)
ERROR: ArgumentError: ===: too few arguments (expected 2)
Stacktrace:
 [1] foo()
   @ Main ./REPL[1]:1
 [2] top-level scope
   @ REPL[2]:1

The same happens with foo(x) = ===(x) but there is no issue when === has too many arguments. I initially found this with === but since it looked like a problem specific to builtins, I also checked the other ones (from the list of the docs here) and found that typeassert() has the same issue, while typeassert(x) does not.

I checked for this on master (1.7.0-DEV.1089, commit d6c092d). The issue is old since it is already present in julia 1.0.0. Incidentally, at the time there were similar internal errors for getfield, setfield! and _apply but those seem to have been resolved in between.

It might be good to take it into account when doing a PR for #36163, I have not checked whether #36759 solves it for ===().