Rollup merge of #122964 - joboet:pointer_expose, r=Amanieu

Rename `expose_addr` to `expose_provenance`

`expose_addr` is a bad name, an address is just a number and cannot be exposed. The operation is actually about the provenance of the pointer.

This PR thus changes the name of the method to `expose_provenance` without changing its return type. There is sufficient precedence for returning a useful value from an operation that does something else without the name indicating such, e.g. [`Option::insert`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.insert) and [`MaybeUninit::write`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/mem/union.MaybeUninit.html#method.write).

Returning the address is merely convenient, not a fundamental part of the operation. This is implied by the fact that integers do not have provenance since
```rust
let addr = ptr.addr();
ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
must behave exactly like
```rust
let addr = ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
as the result of `ptr.expose_provenance()` and `ptr.addr()` is the same integer. Therefore, this PR removes the `#[must_use]` annotation on the function and updates the documentation to reflect the important part.

~~An alternative name would be `expose_provenance`. I'm not at all opposed to that, but it makes a stronger implication than we might want that the provenance of the pointer returned by `ptr::with_exposed_provenance`[^1] is the same as that what was exposed, which is not yet specified as such IIUC. IMHO `expose` does not make that connection.~~

A previous version of this PR suggested `expose` as name, libs-api [decided on](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122964#issuecomment-2033194319) `expose_provenance` to keep the symmetry with `with_exposed_provenance`.

CC `@RalfJung`
r? libs-api

[^1]: I'm using the new name for `from_exposed_addr` suggested by #122935 here.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions