Mark stabilized intrinsics with rustc_allowed_through_unstable_modules

[Aaron1011]

Fixes #99286

PR #95956 accidentally made these intrinsics unstable when
accessed through the unstable path segment 'std::intrinsics'

[rustbot]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[rust-highfive]

r? @joshtriplett

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Aaron1011]

cc @yaahc @cjgillot

[SkiFire13]

PR #95956 accidentally made these intrinsics unstable when
accessed through the unstable path segment 'std::intrinsics'

In that PR there was a crater run and the regressions were identified, but never discussed.

#95956 (comment)

[yaahc]

Oof, ty for catching that, as @SkiFire13 pointed out I reviewed the crater run and identified all of the APIs that needed that attribute and I did the work to add support for that attribute, but when I came back to the PR to finish the last steps I mistakenly remembered having already added those attributes and didn't carefully re-read my own diff 🤦‍♀️ .

[Aaron1011]

This is affecting several repositories - can we get this merged today, so that it makes it into the next nightly?

[yaahc]

Oh, of course, thank you for the reminder. For some reason I was thinking this had to be approved by compiler and not libs, feeling bit scatter brained today >_<

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit ef8e322 has been approved by yaahc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors p=5

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ef8e322 with merge 8c1cc82...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: yaahc
Pushing 8c1cc82 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8c1cc82): comparison url.

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

• Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-0.7%	-0.7%	1
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-3.1%	-3.1%	1
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-0.7%	-0.7%	1

Cycles

Results

• Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-2.8%	-2.8%	1
All 😿🎉 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩²

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²