Hard way to respect BTreeMap's minimum node length
Resolves#74834 the hard way (though not the hardest imaginable).
Benchmarks (which are all biased/realistic, inserting keys in ascending order) say:
```
benchcmp r0 r1 --threshold 10
name r0 ns/iter r1 ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
btree::map::clone_slim_100_and_clear 2,183 2,723 540 24.74% x 0.80
btree::map::clone_slim_100_and_drain_all 3,652 4,173 521 14.27% x 0.88
btree::map::clone_slim_100_and_drain_half 3,320 3,940 620 18.67% x 0.84
btree::map::clone_slim_100_and_into_iter 2,154 2,717 563 26.14% x 0.79
btree::map::clone_slim_100_and_pop_all 3,372 3,870 498 14.77% x 0.87
btree::map::clone_slim_100_and_remove_all 5,111 5,647 536 10.49% x 0.91
btree::map::clone_slim_100_and_remove_half 3,259 3,821 562 17.24% x 0.85
btree::map::iter_0 1,733 1,509 -224 -12.93% x 1.15
btree::map::iter_100 2,714 3,739 1,025 37.77% x 0.73
btree::map::iter_10k 3,728 4,269 541 14.51% x 0.87
btree::map::range_unbounded_unbounded 28,426 36,631 8,205 28.86% x 0.78
btree::map::range_unbounded_vs_iter 28,808 34,056 5,248 18.22% x 0.85
```
This difference is not caused by the `debug_assert`-related code in the function `splitpoint`, it's the same without.
81dc88f88f