miri ABI compatibility check: accept u32 and i32
If only the sign differs, then surely these types are compatible. (We do still check that `arg_ext` is the same, just in case.)
Also I made it so that the ABI check must *imply* that size and alignment are the same, but it doesn't actively check that itself. With how crazy ABI constraints get, having equal size and align really shouldn't be used as a signal for anything I think...
Add a new `compare_bytes` intrinsic instead of calling `memcmp` directly
As discussed in #113435, this lets the backends be the place that can have the "don't call the function if n == 0" logic, if it's needed for the target. (I didn't actually *add* those checks, though, since as I understood it we didn't actually need them on known targets?)
Doing this also let me make it `const` (unstable), which I don't think `extern "C" fn memcmp` can be.
cc `@RalfJung` `@Amanieu`
Add documentation to has_deref
Documentation of `has_deref` needed some polish to be more clear about where it should be used and what's it's purpose.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114401
r? `@RalfJung`
const validation: point at where we found a pointer but expected an integer
Instead of validation just printing "unable to turn pointer into bytes", make this a regular validation error that says where in the value the bad pointer was found. Also distinguish "expected integer, got pointer" from "expected pointer, got partial pointer or mix of pointers".
To avoid duplicating things too much I refactored the diagnostics for validity a bit, so that "got uninit, expected X" and "got pointer, expected X" can share the "X" part. Also all the errors emitted for validation are now grouped under `const_eval_validation` so that they are in a single group in the ftl file.
r? `@oli-obk`
Miri: fix error on dangling pointer inbounds offset
We used to claim that the pointer was "dereferenced", but that is just not true.
Can be reviewed commit-by-commit. The first commit is an unrelated rename that didn't seem worth splitting into its own PR.
r? `@oli-obk`
clarify MIR uninit vs LLVM undef/poison
In [this LLVM discussion](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-load-instruction-uninitialized-memory-semantics/67481) I learned that mapping our uninitialized memory in MIR to poison in LLVM would be quite problematic due to the lack of a byte type. I am not sure where to write down this insight but this seems like a reasonable start.
Ralf Jung