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.

compiler/rustc_feature/src/builtin_attrs.rs

@@ -617,11 +617,6 @@ pub const BUILTIN_ATTRIBUTES: &[BuiltinAttribute] = &[
         DuplicatesOk, EncodeCrossCrate::Yes,
         "allow_internal_unstable side-steps feature gating and stability checks",
     ),
-    gated!(
-        rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable, Normal,
-        template!(Word, List: "feat1, feat2, ..."), DuplicatesOk, EncodeCrossCrate::No,
-        "rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable side-steps feature gating and stability checks"
-    ),
     gated!(
         allow_internal_unsafe, Normal, template!(Word), WarnFollowing,
         EncodeCrossCrate::No, "allow_internal_unsafe side-steps the unsafe_code lint",
@@ -838,6 +833,15 @@ pub const BUILTIN_ATTRIBUTES: &[BuiltinAttribute] = &[
         rustc_const_panic_str, Normal, template!(Word), WarnFollowing,
         EncodeCrossCrate::Yes, INTERNAL_UNSTABLE
     ),
+    rustc_attr!(
+        rustc_const_stable_indirect, Normal,
+        template!(Word), WarnFollowing, EncodeCrossCrate::No, IMPL_DETAIL,
+    ),
+    gated!(
+        rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable, Normal,
+        template!(Word, List: "feat1, feat2, ..."), DuplicatesOk, EncodeCrossCrate::No,
+        "rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable side-steps feature gating and stability checks"
+    ),
 
     // ==========================================================================
     // Internal attributes, Layout related: