Confusing diagnostic when doing a recursive call in a const block in a const fn: "cycle detected when elaborating drops"

Code

const fn foo() {
    const { foo() };
}

Current output

Compiling playground v0.0.1 (/playground)
error[E0391]: cycle detected when elaborating drops for `foo`
 --> src/lib.rs:2:5
  |
2 |     const { foo() };
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
note: ...which requires simplifying constant for the type system `foo::{constant#0}`...
 --> src/lib.rs:2:5
  |
2 |     const { foo() };
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: ...which requires const-evaluating + checking `foo::{constant#0}`...
 --> src/lib.rs:2:5
  |
2 |     const { foo() };
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: ...which requires caching mir of `foo` for CTFE...
 --> src/lib.rs:1:1
  |
1 | const fn foo() {
  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  = note: ...which again requires elaborating drops for `foo`, completing the cycle
  = note: cycle used when running analysis passes on this crate
  = note: see https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/overview.html#queries and https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/query.html for more information

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0391`.
error: could not compile `playground` (lib) due to 1 previous error

Desired output

Something about constant evaluation failing.

Rationale and extra context

No response

Other cases

No response

Rust Version

Nightly rustc on the playground
1.80.0-nightly (2024-05-28 da159eb331b27df52818)

Anything else?

No response

Start by compiling the provided recursive const-block example with the referenced nightly Rust version and inspect how the diagnostic is produced. Trace the relevant compiler diagnostic path for the cycle and make the result describe constant-evaluation failure rather than an opaque drop-elaboration cycle; add or update a regression test if the relevant test location is found.