Add lint rule for #[deprecated] on re-exports (rebase)

[GrigorenkoPV]

Rebase of #132038

Original description:

As reported in #30827 and #84584, marking a re-export (pub use) with #[deprecated] does not produce a warning for consumers. In fact, there are instances of this in the core and std crates (see past issue #82080 where this caused some confusion).

This change modifies the stability annotation visitor to mark #[deprecated] annotations on use statements with AnnotationKind::DeprecationProhibited so that library developers are aware that the annotation is not warning their users as expected.

#[deprecated]
pub use a_module::ActiveType;

error: this `#[deprecated]` annotation has no effect
  --> $DIR/deprecated_use.rs:6:1
   |
LL | #[deprecated]
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: remove the unnecessary deprecation attribute
   |
   = note: `#[deny(useless_deprecated)]` on by default

error: aborting due to 1 previous error

Closes #142436 (I think)

[rustbot]

r? @WaffleLapkin

rustbot has assigned @WaffleLapkin.
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

[WaffleLapkin]

I strongly believe that this should just work. You should be able to deprecate reexports. I've talked with @jdonszelmann and we came up with a "plan" on how to implement that.

I'm marking this as blocked. Either until this is properly supported and the lint is not needed, or until we decide that we can't support it and the list is needed.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #143845) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[epage]

@WaffleLapkin if there is enough of a gap before a solution, would it make sense to go ahead and report that it has no effect until then so people know they are writing deprecated messages that will be ignored? The lint is literally describing the current behavior and it seems like it would be fine to later remove that lint when there is an effect.