Rollup merge of #138632 - clubby789:stabilize-cfg-boolean-lit, r=davidtwco,Urgau,traviscross

Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`

Closes #131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating

--

# Stabilization Report

## General design

### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?

[RFC 3695](rust-lang/rfcs#3695), none.

### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.

None

### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?

None

## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?

Yes; only positive feedback was received.

## Implementation quality

### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)

Implemented in [#131034](rust-lang/rust#131034).

### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature

- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`

### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?

The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.

### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?

None

### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)

### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?

`rustdoc`'s  unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.

## Type system and execution rules

### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)

A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.

Author: matthiaskrgr

crates/ide-db/src/generated/lints.rs

@@ -3789,35 +3789,6 @@ The tracking issue for this feature is: [#64797]
 [#64797]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64797
 
 ------------------------
-"##,
-        default_severity: Severity::Allow,
-        warn_since: None,
-        deny_since: None,
-    },
-    Lint {
-        label: "cfg_boolean_literals",
-        description: r##"# `cfg_boolean_literals`
-
-The tracking issue for this feature is: [#131204]
-
-[#131204]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131204
-
-------------------------
-
-The `cfg_boolean_literals` feature makes it possible to use the `true`/`false`
-literal as cfg predicate. They always evaluate to true/false respectively.
-
-## Examples
-
-```rust
-#![feature(cfg_boolean_literals)]
-
-#[cfg(true)]
-const A: i32 = 5;
-
-#[cfg(all(false))]
-const A: i32 = 58 * 89;
-```
 "##,
         default_severity: Severity::Allow,
         warn_since: None,