Encode `VariantIdx` so we can decode ADT variants in the right order
As far as I can tell, we don't guarantee anything about the ordering of `DefId`s and module children...
The code that motivated this PR (#111483) looks something like:
```rust
#[derive(Protocol)]
pub enum Data {
#[protocol(discriminator(0x00))]
Disconnect(Disconnect),
EncryptionRequest,
/* more variants... */
}
```
The specific macro ([`protocol`](https://github.com/dylanmckay/protocol)) doesn't really matter, but as far as I can tell (from calls to `build_reduced_graph`), the presence of that `#[protocol(..)]` helper attribute causes the def-id of the `Disconnect` enum variant to be collected *after* its siblings, and it shows up after the other variants in `module_children`.
When we decode the variants for `Data` in a child crate (an example test, in this case), this means that the `Disconnect` variant is moved to the end of the variants list, and all of the other variants now have incorrect relative discriminant data, causing the ICE.
This PR fixes this by sorting manually by variant index after they are decoded. I guess there are alternative ways of fixing this, such as not reusing `module_children_non_reexports` to encode the order-sensitive ADT variants, or to do some sorting in `rustc_resolve`... but none of those seemed particularly satisfying either.
~I really struggled to create a reproduction here -- it required at least 3 crates, one of which is a proc macro, and then some code to actually compute discriminants in the child crate... Needless to say, I failed to repro this in a test, but I can confirm that it fixes the regression in #111483.~ Test exists now.
r? `@petrochenkov` but feel free to reassign. ~Again, sorry for no test, but I hope the explanation at least suggests why a fix like this is likely necessary.~ Feedback is welcome.
8c89601647