Auto merge of #105613 - Nilstrieb:rename-assert_uninit_valid, r=RalfJung

Rename `assert_uninit_valid` intrinsic

It's not about "uninit" anymore but about "filling with 0x01 bytes" so the name should at least try to reflect that.

This is actually not fully correct though, as it does still panic for all uninit with `-Zstrict-init-checks`. I'm not sure what the best way is to deal with that not causing confusion. I guess we could just remove the flag? I don't think having it makes a lot of sense anymore with the direction that we have chose to go. It could be relevant again if #100423 lands so removing it may be a bit over eager.

r? `@RalfJung`

Author: bors

core/src/intrinsics.rs

@@ -959,13 +959,13 @@ extern "rust-intrinsic" {
     #[rustc_safe_intrinsic]
     pub fn assert_zero_valid<T>();
 
-    /// A guard for unsafe functions that cannot ever be executed if `T` has invalid
-    /// bit patterns: This will statically either panic, or do nothing.
+    /// A guard for `std::mem::uninitialized`. This will statically either panic, or do nothing.
     ///
     /// This intrinsic does not have a stable counterpart.
     #[rustc_const_unstable(feature = "const_assert_type2", issue = "none")]
     #[rustc_safe_intrinsic]
-    pub fn assert_uninit_valid<T>();
+    #[cfg(not(bootstrap))]
+    pub fn assert_mem_uninitialized_valid<T>();
 
     /// Gets a reference to a static `Location` indicating where it was called.
     ///

core/src/mem/mod.rs

@@ -682,7 +682,8 @@ pub unsafe fn zeroed<T>() -> T {
 pub unsafe fn uninitialized<T>() -> T {
     // SAFETY: the caller must guarantee that an uninitialized value is valid for `T`.
     unsafe {
-        intrinsics::assert_uninit_valid::<T>();
+        #[cfg(not(bootstrap))] // If the compiler hits this itself then it deserves the UB.
+        intrinsics::assert_mem_uninitialized_valid::<T>();
         let mut val = MaybeUninit::<T>::uninit();
 
         // Fill memory with 0x01, as an imperfect mitigation for old code that uses this function on