Detect array_chunks/array_chunks_mut usage cases (and more)

In this benchmark:
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/program/mandelbrot-rust-6.html

There's code like:

#![allow(unused_variables)]

#[allow(non_camel_case_types)]
#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
pub struct f64x2(f64,f64);

const ZEROS: [f64x2;4] = [f64x2(0.0,0.0); 4];

#[inline(always)]
fn mand8(init_r: &[f64x2;4], init_i : f64x2) -> u8 { 0 }

pub fn mand64(init_r: &[f64x2;32], init_i : f64x2, out : &mut [u8]) {
    let mut tmp_init_r = ZEROS;

    for i in 0..8 {
        tmp_init_r.copy_from_slice(&init_r[4*i..4*i+4]);
        out[i] = mand8(&tmp_init_r, init_i);
    }
}

fn main() {
    /*
    ...
    let rows : Vec<_>  = if width%64==0 {
        (0..width).into_par_iter().map(|y|{
            let mut tmp_r0 = [f64x2(0.0,0.0);32];
            let mut row = vec![0 as u8; (width/8) as usize];
            let init_i = f64x2(i0[y], i0[y]);

            for x in 0..width/64{
                tmp_r0.copy_from_slice(&r0[32*x..32*x+32]);
                mand64(&tmp_r0, init_i, &mut row[8*x..8*x + 8]);
            }
            row
        }).collect()
    }
    ...
    */
}

If you take a look at the asm of mand64 you see a core::panicking::panic_bounds_check.

If you replace the slicing of the main &mut row[8*x..8*x + 8] with a slice::array_chunks_mut, the panic vanishes and the code gets optimized better (and the benchmark gets a little faster). So I suggest to detect situations like that &row[8*x..8*x + 8] and suggest to use array_chunks/array_chunks_mut instead.

As a bonus Clippy could detect such case even if it's not inside a loop, in that case it could just suggest a myslice[8*i..8*i + 8].try_into().unrap() at call point. But I suspect this lint is going to have more false positives compared to the array_chunks/array_chunks_mut cases.

Start with the mand64 example in the linked benchmark and compare the bounds-checked slices with array_chunks/array_chunks_mut. Define the lint's supported loop cases and the optional try_into suggestion, then verify that it avoids the false positives noted in the issue.