According to
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-volatile-access-to-non-dereferenceable-memory-may-be-well-defined/86303/4,
LLVM allows volatile operations on null and handles it correctly. This
should be allowed in Rust as well, because I/O memory may be hard-coded
to address 0 in some cases, like the AVR chip ATtiny1626.
A test case that ensured a failure when passing null to volatile was
removed, since it's now valid.
Due to the addition of `maybe_is_aligned` to `ub_checks`,
`maybe_is_aligned_and_not_null` was refactored to use it.
docs: revise restrictions on volatile operations
A distinction between usage on Rust memory vs. non-Rust memory was
introduced. Documentation was reworded to explain what that means, and
make explicit that:
- No trapping can occur from volatile operations;
- On Rust memory, all safety rules must be respected;
- On Rust memory, the primary difference from regular access is that
volatile always involves a memory dereference;
- On Rust memory, the only data affected by an operation is the one
pointed to in the argument(s) of the function;
- On Rust memory, provenance follows the same rules as non-volatile
access;
- On non-Rust memory, any address known to not contain Rust memory is
valid (including 0 and usize::MAX);
- On non-Rust memory, no Rust memory may be affected (it is implicit
that any other non-Rust memory may be affected, though, even if not
referenced by the pointer). This should be relevant when, for example,
reading register A causes a flag to change in register B, or writing
to A causes B to change in some way. Everything affected mustn't be
inside an allocation.
- On non-Rust memory, provenance is irrelevant and a pointer with none
can be used in a valid way.
fix: don't lint null as UB for volatile
Also remove a now-unneeded `allow` line.
fix: additional wording nits
8a8717e971