Add lint against ambiguous wide pointer comparisons
This PR is the resolution of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106447 decided in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117717 by T-lang.
## `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons`
*warn-by-default*
The `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons` lint checks comparison of `*const/*mut ?Sized` as the operands.
### Example
```rust
let ab = (A, B);
let a = &ab.0 as *const dyn T;
let b = &ab.1 as *const dyn T;
let _ = a == b;
```
### Explanation
The comparison includes metadata which may not be expected.
-------
This PR also drops `clippy::vtable_address_comparisons` which is superseded by this one.
~~One thing: is the current naming right? `invalid` seems a bit too much.~~
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117717
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
Add `debug_assert_nounwind` and convert `assert_unsafe_precondition`
`assert_unsafe_precondition` checks non-CTFE-evaluable conditions in runtime and performs no-op in compile time, while many of its current usage can be checked during const eval.
Add `std:#️⃣:{DefaultHasher, RandomState}` exports (needs FCP)
This implements rust-lang/libs-team#267 to move the libstd hasher types to `std::hash` where they belong, instead of `std::collections::hash_map`.
<details><summary>The below no longer applies, but is kept for clarity.</summary>
This is a small refactor for #27242, which moves the definitions of `RandomState` and `DefaultHasher` into `std::hash`, but in a way that won't be noticed in the public API.
I've opened rust-lang/libs-team#267 as a formal ACP to move these directly into the root of `std::hash`, but for now, they're at least separated out from the collections code in a way that will make moving that around easier.
I decided to simply copy the rustdoc for `std::hash` from `core::hash` since I think it would be ideal for the two to diverge longer-term, especially if the ACP is accepted. However, I would be willing to factor them out into a common markdown document if that's preferred.
</details>
document that the null pointer has the 0 address
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116895
Will need t-lang FCP, but I think this is fairly uncontroversial -- there's probably already tons of code out there that relies on this.
Make useless_ptr_null_checks smarter about some std functions
This teaches the `useless_ptr_null_checks` lint that some std functions can't ever return null pointers, because they need to point to valid data, get references as input, etc.
This is achieved by introducing an `#[rustc_never_returns_null_ptr]` attribute and adding it to these std functions (gated behind bootstrap `cfg_attr`).
Later on, the attribute could maybe be used to tell LLVM that the returned pointer is never null. I don't expect much impact of that though, as the functions are pretty shallow and usually the input data is already never null.
Follow-up of PR #113657Fixes#114442
Add alignment to the NPO guarantee
This PR [changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114845#discussion_r1294363357) "same size" to "same size and alignment" in the option module's null pointer optimization docs in <https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/#representation>.
As far as I know, this has been true for a long time in the actual rustc implementation, but it's not in the text of those docs, so I figured I'd bring this up to FCP it.
I also see no particular reason that we'd ever *want* to have higher alignment on these. In many of the cases it's impossible, as the minimum alignment is already the size of the type, but even if we *could* do things like on 32-bit we could say that `NonZeroU64` is 4-align but `Option<NonZeroU64>` is 8-align, I just don't see any value in doing that, so feel completely fine closing this door for the few things on which the NPO is already guaranteed. These are basically all primitives, and should end up with the same size & alignment as those primitives.
(There's no layout guarantee for something like `Option<[u8; 3]>`, where it'd be at least plausible to consider raising the alignment from 1 to 4 on, say, some hypothetical target that doesn't have efficient unaligned 4-byte load/stores. And even if we ever did start to offer some kind of guarantee around such a type, I doubt we'd put it under the "null pointer" optimization header.)
Screenshots for the new examples:
