cg_clif should support enough simd intrinsics now to not need almost all
cpu features to be force disabled. In addition they can't be disabled
anyway when using a sysroot compiled by LLVM.
Prototype using const generic for simd_shuffle IDX array
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85229
r? `@workingjubilee` on the design
TLDR: there is now a `fn simd_shuffle_generic<T, U, const IDX: &'static [u32]>(x: T, y: T) -> U;` intrinsic that allows replacing
```rust
simd_shuffle(a, b, const { stuff })
```
with
```rust
simd_shuffle_generic::<_, _, {&stuff}>(a, b)
```
which makes the compiler implementations much simpler, if we manage to at some point eliminate `simd_shuffle`.
There are some issues with this today though (can't do math without bubbling it up in the generic arguments). With this change, we can start porting the simple cases and get better data on the others.
rename mir::Constant -> mir::ConstOperand, mir::ConstKind -> mir::Const
Also, be more consistent with the `to/eval_bits` methods... we had some that take a type and some that take a size, and then sometimes the one that takes a type is called `bits_for_ty`.
Turns out that `ty::Const`/`mir::ConstKind` carry their type with them, so we don't need to even pass the type to those `eval_bits` functions at all.
However this is not properly consistent yet: in `ty` we have most of the methods on `ty::Const`, but in `mir` we have them on `mir::ConstKind`. And indeed those two types are the ones that correspond to each other. So `mir::ConstantKind` should actually be renamed to `mir::Const`. But what to do with `mir::Constant`? It carries around a span, that's really more like a constant operand that appears as a MIR operand... it's more suited for `syntax.rs` than `consts.rs`, but the bigger question is, which name should it get if we want to align the `mir` and `ty` types? `ConstOperand`? `ConstOp`? `Literal`? It's not a literal but it has a field called `literal` so it would at least be consistently wrong-ish...
``@oli-obk`` any ideas?
