Add `__isPlatformVersionAtLeast` and `__isOSVersionAtLeast` symbols
## Motivation
When Objective-C code uses ```@available(...)`,`` Clang inserts a call to [`__isPlatformVersionAtLeast`](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-20.1.0/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/os_version_check.c#L276) (`__isOSVersionAtLeast` in older Clang versions). These symbols not being available sometimes ends up causing linker errors. See the new test `tests/run-make/apple-c-available-links` for a minimal reproducer.
The workaround is to link `libclang_rt.osx.a`, see e.g. https://github.com/alexcrichton/curl-rust/issues/279. But that's very difficult for users to figure out (and the backreferences to that issue indicates that people are still running into this in their own projects every so often).
For another recent example, this is preventing `rustc` from using LLVM assertions on macOS, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/62592#issuecomment-510670657 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134275#issuecomment-2543067830.
It is also a blocker for [setting the correct minimum OS version in `cc-rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136113), since fixing this in `cc-rs` might end up introducing linker errors in places where we weren't before (by default, if using e.g. ```@available(macos`` 10.15, *)`, the symbol usually happens to be left out, since `clang` defaults to compiling for the host macOS version, and thus things _seem_ to work - but the availability check actually compiles down to nothing, which is a huge correctness footgun for running on older OSes).
(My super secret evil agenda is also to expose some variant of ```@available``` in Rust's `std` after https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3750 progresses further, will probably file an ACP for this later. But I believe this PR has value regardless of those future plans, since we'd be making C/Objective-C/Swift interop easier).
## Solution
Implement `__isPlatformVersionAtLeast` and `__isOSVersionAtLeast` as part of the "public ABI" that `std` exposes.
**This is insta-stable**, in the same sense that additions to `compiler-builtins` are insta-stable, though the availability of these symbols can probably be considered a "quality of implementation" detail rather than a stable promise.
I originally proposed to implement this in `compiler-builtins`, see https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/794, but we discussed moving it to `std` instead ([Zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/219381-t-libs/topic/Provide.20.60__isPlatformVersionAtLeast.60.20in.20.60std.60.3F/with/507880717)), which makes the implementation substantially simpler, and we avoid gnarly issues with requiring the user to link `libSystem.dylib` (since `std` unconditionally does that).
Note that this does not solve the linker errors for (pure) `#![no_std]` users, but that's _probably_ fine, if you are using ```@available``` to test the OS version on Apple platforms, you're likely also using `std` (and it is still possible to work around by linking `libclang_rt.*.a`).
A thing to note about the implementation, I've choosen to stray a bit from LLVM's upstream implementation, and not use `_availability_version_check` since [it has problems when compiling with an older SDK](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64227). Instead, we use `sysctl kern.osproductversion` when available to still avoid the costly PList lookup in most cases, but still with a fall back to the PList lookup when that is not available (with the PList fallback being is similar to LLVM's implementation).
## Testing
Apple has a lot of different "modes" that they can run binaries in, which can be a bit difficult to find your bearings in, but I've tried to be as thorough as I could in testing them all.
Tested using roughly the equivalent of `./x test library/std -- platform_version` on the following configurations:
- macOS 14.7.3 on a Macbook Pro M2
- `aarch64-apple-darwin`
- `x86_64-apple-darwin` (under Rosetta)
- `aarch64-apple-ios-macabi`
- `x86_64-apple-ios-macabi` (under Rosetta)
- `aarch64-apple-ios` (using Xcode's "Designed for iPad" setting)
- `aarch64-apple-ios-sim` (in iOS Simulator, as iPhone with iOS 17.5)
- `aarch64-apple-ios-sim` (in iOS Simulator, as iPad with iOS 18.2)
- `aarch64-apple-tvos-sim` (in tvOS Simulator)
- `aarch64-apple-watchos-sim` (in watchOS Simulator)
- `aarch64-apple-ios-sim` (in visionOS simulator, using Xcode's "Designed for iPad" setting)
- `aarch64-apple-visionos-sim` (in visionOS Simulator)
- macOS 15.3.1 VM
- `aarch64-apple-darwin`
- `aarch64-apple-ios-macabi`
- macOS 10.12.6 on an Intel Macbook from 2013
- `x86_64-apple-darwin`
- `i686-apple-darwin`
- `x86_64-apple-ios` (in iOS Simulator)
- iOS 9.3.6 on a 1st generation iPad Mini
- `armv7-apple-ios` with an older compiler
Along with manually inspecting the output of `version_from_sysctl()` and `version_from_plist()`, and verifying that they actually match what's expected.
I believe the only real omissions here would be:
- `aarch64-apple-ios` on a newer iPhone that has `sysctl` available (iOS 11.4 or above).
- `aarch64-apple-ios` on a Vision Pro using Xcode's "Designed for iPad" setting.
But I don't have the hardware available to test those.
``@rustbot`` label O-apple A-linkage -T-compiler -A-meta -A-run-make
try-job: aarch64-apple
349fbba24f