Re-do recursive const stability checks

Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features

This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.

Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.

The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.

Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.

patches/0027-stdlib-128bit-atomic-operations.patch

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ diff --git a/library/core/src/sync/atomic.rs b/library/core/src/sync/atomic.rs
 index d9de37e..8293fce 100644
 --- a/library/core/src/sync/atomic.rs
 +++ b/library/core/src/sync/atomic.rs
-@@ -2996,42 +2996,6 @@ atomic_int! {
+@@ -2996,44 +2996,6 @@ atomic_int! {
      8,
      u64 AtomicU64
  }
@@ -52,7 +52,8 @@ index d9de37e..8293fce 100644
 -    unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
 -    unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
 -    unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
--    rustc_const_stable(feature = "const_integer_atomics", since = "1.34.0"),
+-    rustc_const_unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
+-    rustc_const_unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
 -    cfg_attr(not(test), rustc_diagnostic_item = "AtomicI128"),
 -    "i128",
 -    "#![feature(integer_atomics)]\n\n",
@@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ index d9de37e..8293fce 100644
 -    unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
 -    unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
 -    unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
--    rustc_const_stable(feature = "const_integer_atomics", since = "1.34.0"),
+-    rustc_const_unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
+-    rustc_const_unstable(feature = "integer_atomics", issue = "99069"),
 -    cfg_attr(not(test), rustc_diagnostic_item = "AtomicU128"),
 -    "u128",
 -    "#![feature(integer_atomics)]\n\n",