Re-do recursive const stability checks

Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features

This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.

Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.

The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.

Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/library/core/src/alloc/layout.rs b/library/core/src/alloc/layout.rs
index fca32b9d3c5..95cf9427e02 100644
--- a/library/core/src/alloc/layout.rs
+++ b/library/core/src/alloc/layout.rs
@@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ impl Layout {
     #[stable(feature = "alloc_layout", since = "1.28.0")]
     #[rustc_const_stable(feature = "const_alloc_layout_size_align", since = "1.50.0")]
     #[inline]
-    #[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(ptr_alignment_type)]
     pub const fn from_size_align(size: usize, align: usize) -> Result<Self, LayoutError> {
         if Layout::is_size_align_valid(size, align) {
             // SAFETY: Layout::is_size_align_valid checks the preconditions for this call.
@@ -127,7 +126,6 @@ impl Layout {
     #[rustc_const_stable(feature = "const_alloc_layout_unchecked", since = "1.36.0")]
     #[must_use]
     #[inline]
-    #[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(ptr_alignment_type)]
     pub const unsafe fn from_size_align_unchecked(size: usize, align: usize) -> Self {
         assert_unsafe_precondition!(
             check_library_ub,
@@ -159,7 +157,7 @@ impl Layout {
     #[must_use = "this returns the minimum alignment, \
                   without modifying the layout"]
     #[inline]
-    #[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(ptr_alignment_type)]
+    #[cfg_attr(bootstrap, rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(ptr_alignment_type))]
     pub const fn align(&self) -> usize {
         self.align.as_usize()
     }