x86_64 SSE2 fast-path for str.contains(&str) and short needles
Based on Wojciech Muła's [SIMD-friendly algorithms for substring searching](http://0x80.pl/articles/simd-strfind.html#sse-avx2)
The two-way algorithm is Big-O efficient but it needs to preprocess the needle
to find a "critical factorization" of it. This additional work is significant
for short needles. Additionally it mostly advances needle.len() bytes at a time.
The SIMD-based approach used here on the other hand can advance based on its
vector width, which can exceed the needle length. Except for pathological cases,
but due to being limited to small needles the worst case blowup is also small.
benchmarks taken on a Zen2, compiled with `-Ccodegen-units=1`:
```
OLD:
test str::bench_contains_16b_in_long ... bench: 504 ns/iter (+/- 14) = 5061 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_2b_repeated_long ... bench: 948 ns/iter (+/- 175) = 2690 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_32b_in_long ... bench: 445 ns/iter (+/- 6) = 5732 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_bad_naive ... bench: 130 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 569 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_bad_simd ... bench: 84 ns/iter (+/- 8) = 880 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_equal ... bench: 142 ns/iter (+/- 7) = 394 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_short_long ... bench: 677 ns/iter (+/- 25) = 3768 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_short_short ... bench: 27 ns/iter (+/- 2) = 2074 MB/s
NEW:
test str::bench_contains_16b_in_long ... bench: 82 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 31109 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_2b_repeated_long ... bench: 73 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 34945 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_32b_in_long ... bench: 71 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 35929 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_bad_naive ... bench: 7 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 10571 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_bad_simd ... bench: 97 ns/iter (+/- 41) = 762 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_equal ... bench: 4 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 14000 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_short_long ... bench: 73 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 34945 MB/s
test str::bench_contains_short_short ... bench: 12 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 4666 MB/s
```
9340e5c1b9