[BUG] Discrepancy between CuTe C++ and pycute

Which component has the problem?

CUTLASS C++

Bug Report

Describe the bug
There is a discrepancy in behavior between pycute and Cute C++: composition_impl() at layout.hpp:1076-1077 uses a weak stride divisibility condition that accepts compositions pycute rejects:

// layout.hpp:1076-1077
CUTE_STATIC_ASSERT_V( ((rest_stride % curr_shape) == Int<0>{}) or (rest_stride < curr_shape), "Stride Divisibility Condition");

The weak condition violates the documented C(i) = A(B(i)) contract for standalone composition.

Steps/Code to reproduce bug

A=(4,6,8):(2,3,5), B=6:3), c = A o B

CuTe C++:

#include <cute/layout.hpp>
using namespace cute;
// Compiles, produces (_2,_3):(_6,_3), but C(2)=3 != A(B(2))=7
auto C = composition( 
     make_layout(make_shape(_4{},_6{},_8{}), make_stride(_2{},_3{},_5{})),  
     make_layout(_6{}, _3{}));

pycute:

import pycute
# Raises AssertionError — rejects the composition
pycute.composition( pycute.Layout((4, 6, 8), (2, 3, 5)), pycute.Layout(6, 3))

Expected behavior
pycute is correct

Start in layout.hpp at composition_impl(), around lines 1076-1077, and run the C++ reproducer from the issue alongside the pycute example. Trace the standalone composition contract and add regression coverage for the provided layouts; done means the invalid composition is rejected consistently while valid compositions continue to work.