Rollup merge of #120950 - compiler-errors:miri-async-closurs, r=RalfJung,oli-obk

Fix async closures in CTFE

First commit renames `is_coroutine_or_closure` into `is_closure_like`, because `is_coroutine_or_closure_or_coroutine_closure` seems confusing and long.

Second commit fixes some forgotten cases where we want to handle `TyKind::CoroutineClosure` the same as closures and coroutines.

The test exercises the change to `ValidityVisitor::aggregate_field_path_elem` which is the source of #120946, but not the change to `UsedParamsNeedSubstVisitor`, though I feel like it's not that big of a deal. Let me know if you'd like for me to look into constructing a test for the latter, though I have no idea what it'd look like (we can't assert against `TooGeneric` anywhere?).

Fixes #120946

r? oli-obk cc ``@RalfJung``

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/validity.rs

@@ -240,8 +240,8 @@ impl<'rt, 'mir, 'tcx: 'mir, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> ValidityVisitor<'rt, 'mir, '
 
         // Now we know we are projecting to a field, so figure out which one.
         match layout.ty.kind() {
-            // coroutines and closures.
-            ty::Closure(def_id, _) | ty::Coroutine(def_id, _) => {
+            // coroutines, closures, and coroutine-closures all have upvars that may be named.
+            ty::Closure(def_id, _) | ty::Coroutine(def_id, _) | ty::CoroutineClosure(def_id, _) => {
                 let mut name = None;
                 // FIXME this should be more descriptive i.e. CapturePlace instead of CapturedVar
                 // https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/46