Fix ICE in `loops` module
changelog: Fix ICE related to `needless_collect` when a call to `iter()` was not present.
I went for restoring the old suggestion of `next().is_some()` over `get(0).is_some()` given that `iter()` is not necessarily present (could be e.g. `into_iter()` or `iter_mut()`) and that the old suggestion could change semantics, e.g. a call to `filter()` could be present between `iter()` and the collect part.
Fixes#5872
Renamed remaining references to "undef" to "uninit" when referring to Miri.
Impacted directories are:
- src/librustc_codegen_llvm/consts.rs
- src/librustc_middle/mir/interpret/
- src/librustc_middle/ty/print/pretty.rs
- src/librustc_mir/
- src/tools/clippy/clippy_lints/src/consts.rs
Upon building Miri based on the new changes it was verified that no changes needed to be made with the Miri project.
Related issue #71193
By moving `{known,used}_attrs` from `SessionGlobals` to `Session`. This
means they are accessed via the `Session`, rather than via TLS. A few
`Attr` methods and `librustc_ast` functions are now methods of
`Session`.
All of this required passing a `Session` to lots of functions that didn't
already have one. Some of these functions also had arguments removed, because
those arguments could be accessed directly via the `Session` argument.
`contains_feature_attr()` was dead, and is removed.
Some functions were moved from `librustc_ast` elsewhere because they now need
to access `Session`, which isn't available in that crate.
- `entry_point_type()` --> `librustc_builtin_macros`
- `global_allocator_spans()` --> `librustc_metadata`
- `is_proc_macro_attr()` --> `Session`
* Add an easy-to-see note at the top of `CONTRIBUTING.md` that points
new contributors to the Basics docs
* Add a note about compiler errors as a result of internals changes
that break Clippy
Check whether locals are too large instead of whether accesses into them are too large
Essentially this stops const prop from attempting to optimize
```rust
let mut x = [0_u8; 5000];
x[42] = 3;
```
I don't expect this to be a perf improvement without #73656 (which is also where the lack of this PR will be a perf regression).
r? @wesleywiser
