Add extra unchecked_disjoint_bitor implementations.

[bjoernager]

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

impl bool {
    pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self;
}

impl i8 {
    pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self;
}

impl i16 {
    pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self;
}

impl i32 {
    pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self;
}

impl i64 {
    pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self;
}

impl i128 {
    pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self;
}

impl isize {
    pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self;
}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[bjoernager]

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

[bjoernager]

r? libs-api

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[tgross35]

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

[tgross35]

"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."

Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

[tgross35]

Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

[bjoernager]

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

[tgross35]

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.

Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.