…ackler

Fix `vec![x; n]` with null raw fat pointer zeroing the pointer metadata

rust-lang#49496 introduced specialization based on:

```rust
unsafe impl<T: ?Sized> IsZero for *mut T {
    fn is_zero(&self) -> bool {
        (*self).is_null()
    }
}
```

… to call `RawVec::with_capacity_zeroed` for creating `Vec<*mut T>`, which is incorrect for fat pointers since `<*mut T>::is_null` only looks at the data component. That is, a fat pointer can be “null” without being made entirely of zero bits.

This commit fixes it by removing the `?Sized` bound on this impl (and the corresponding `*const T` one). This regresses `vec![x; n]` with `x` a null raw slice of length zero, but that seems exceptionally uncommon. (Vtable pointers are never null, so raw trait objects would not take the fast path anyway.)

An alternative to keep the `?Sized` bound (or even generalize to `impl<U: Copy> IsZero for U`) would be to cast to `&[u8]` of length `size_of::<U>()`, but the optimizer seems not to be able to propagate alignment information and sticks with comparing one byte at a time:

https://rust.godbolt.org/z/xQFkwL

----

Without the library change, the new test fails as follows:

```rust
---- vec::vec_macro_repeating_null_raw_fat_pointer stdout ----
[src/liballoc/tests/vec.rs:1301] ptr_metadata(raw_dyn) = 0x00005596ef95f9a8
[src/liballoc/tests/vec.rs:1306] ptr_metadata(vec[0]) = 0x0000000000000000
thread 'vec::vec_macro_repeating_null_raw_fat_pointer' panicked at 'assertion failed: vec[0] == null_raw_dyn', src/liballoc/tests/vec.rs:1307:5
```

…ackler

Fix `vec![x; n]` with null raw fat pointer zeroing the pointer metadata

rust-lang#49496 introduced specialization based on:

```rust
unsafe impl<T: ?Sized> IsZero for *mut T {
    fn is_zero(&self) -> bool {
        (*self).is_null()
    }
}
```

… to call `RawVec::with_capacity_zeroed` for creating `Vec<*mut T>`, which is incorrect for fat pointers since `<*mut T>::is_null` only looks at the data component. That is, a fat pointer can be “null” without being made entirely of zero bits.

This commit fixes it by removing the `?Sized` bound on this impl (and the corresponding `*const T` one). This regresses `vec![x; n]` with `x` a null raw slice of length zero, but that seems exceptionally uncommon. (Vtable pointers are never null, so raw trait objects would not take the fast path anyway.)

An alternative to keep the `?Sized` bound (or even generalize to `impl<U: Copy> IsZero for U`) would be to cast to `&[u8]` of length `size_of::<U>()`, but the optimizer seems not to be able to propagate alignment information and sticks with comparing one byte at a time:

https://rust.godbolt.org/z/xQFkwL

----

Without the library change, the new test fails as follows:

```rust
---- vec::vec_macro_repeating_null_raw_fat_pointer stdout ----
[src/liballoc/tests/vec.rs:1301] ptr_metadata(raw_dyn) = 0x00005596ef95f9a8
[src/liballoc/tests/vec.rs:1306] ptr_metadata(vec[0]) = 0x0000000000000000
thread 'vec::vec_macro_repeating_null_raw_fat_pointer' panicked at 'assertion failed: vec[0] == null_raw_dyn', src/liballoc/tests/vec.rs:1307:5
```

Rollup of 9 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #64377 (Add long error explanation for E0493)
 - #64786 (Use https for curl when building for linux)
 - #64828 (Graphviz debug output for generic dataflow analysis)
 - #64838 (Add long error explanation for E0550)
 - #64891 (Fix `vec![x; n]` with null raw fat pointer zeroing the pointer metadata)
 - #64893 (Zero-initialize `vec![None; n]` for `Option<&T>`, `Option<&mut T>` and `Option<Box<T>>`)
 - #64911 (Fixed a misleading documentation issue #64844)
 - #64921 (Add test for issue-64662)
 - #64923 (Add missing links for mem::needs_drop)

Failed merges:

 - #64918 (Add long error explanation for E0551)

r? @ghost