Explicitly reject negative and reservation drop impls
Fixes#110858
It doesn't really make sense for a type to have a `!Drop` impl. Or at least, I don't want us to implicitly assign a meaning to it by the way the compiler *currently* handles it (incompletely), and rather I would like to see a PR (or an RFC...) assign a meaning to `!Drop` if we actually wanted one for it.
Add `ConstParamTy` trait
This is a bit sketch, but idk.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
Yet to be done:
- [x] ~~Figure out if it's okay to implement `StructuralEq` for primitives / possibly remove their special casing~~ (it should be okay, but maybe not in this PR...)
- [ ] Maybe refactor the code a little bit
- [x] Use a macro to make impls a bit nicer
Future work:
- [ ] Actually™ use the trait when checking if a `const` generic type is allowed
- [ ] _Really_ refactor the surrounding code
- [ ] Refactor `marker.rs` into multiple modules for each "theme" of markers
This makes it easier to open the messages file while developing on features.
The commit was the result of automatted changes:
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do mv $p/locales/en-US.ftl $p/messages.ftl; rmdir $p/locales; done
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do sed -i "s#\.\./locales/en-US.ftl#../messages.ftl#" $p/src/lib.rs; done
