layout computation: gracefully handle unsized types in unexpected locations

[lukas-code]

This PR reworks the layout computation to eagerly return an error when encountering an unsized field where a sized field was expected, rather than delaying a bug and attempting to recover a layout. This is required, because with trivially false where clauses like [T]: Sized, any field can possible be an unsized type, without causing a compile error.

Since this PR removes the delayed_bug method from the LayoutCalculator trait, it essentially becomes the same as the HasDataLayout trait, so I've also refactored the LayoutCalculator to be a simple wrapper struct around a type that implements HasDataLayout.

The majority of the diff is whitespace changes, so viewing with whitespace ignored is advised.

implements #123169 (comment)

r? @compiler-errors or compiler

fixes #123134
fixes #124182
fixes #126939
fixes #127737

[rustbot]

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

rust-analyzer is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/rust-analyzer instead.

cc @rust-lang/rust-analyzer

[Veykril]

r-a side

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #130415) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[compiler-errors]

Great work!

[compiler-errors]

r=me when green

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 20d2414 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 20d2414 with merge e2dc1a1...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing e2dc1a1 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e2dc1a1): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary 5.2%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.2%	[5.2%, 5.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 760.616s -> 760.716s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 341.32 MiB -> 341.27 MiB (-0.02%)