feat(allocator): add bitset utils

[zzt1224]

This PR adds new utility methods unset_bit and union to the BitSet

Note

I used Deepwiki and Copilot.
Well, plus ChatGPT to polish my comment in the code if it's a long one

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR adds utility methods to the BitSet data structure, enabling bitwise operations and bit manipulation. The changes enhance the bitset's functionality with operations commonly needed in allocator implementations.

Key changes:

• Added unset_bit method to clear individual bits
• Added union method to perform bitwise OR operations between bitsets
• Renamed test function from union to clone_in and added comprehensive tests for the new methods

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Boshen]

This looks AI generated, please follow https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#ai-usage-policy

[zzt1224]

This looks AI generated, please follow https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#ai-usage-policy

AI disclosure added!

[Boshen]

Given that there's no call sites for these methods, and is AI generated, I'm in favor of closing.

[zzt1224]

Given that there's no call sites for these methods, and is AI generated, I'm in favor of closing.

This is not just "ai generated". I use Deepwiki and Copilot when I’m working on the OXC project. This is from another PR and was reviewed by @overlookmotel

#15466 (review)

[Boshen]

Given that there's no call sites for these methods, and is AI generated, I'm in favor of closing.

This is not just "ai generated". I use Deepwiki and Copilot when I’m working on the OXC project. This is from another PR and was reviewed by @overlookmotel

#15466 (review)

Thank you for the context.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #17042 will not alter performance

_{Comparing zzt1224:12-17-feat_allocator_bitset_utils (1140d45) with main (9190c4b)¹}

Summary

✅ 42 untouched
⏩ 3 skipped²

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (b48d5f1) during the generation of this report, so 9190c4b was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 3 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

Resolved.

[overlookmotel]

Thank you!