Detected overflow in ranges should suggest inclusive ranges

[porglezomp]

Now that inclusive ranges are stabilized, we have a good way to write (for example) 0..=255u8. Right now compiling:

fn main() {
    for i in 0..256u8 {
        println!("{}", i);
    }
}

will give the error message:

warning: literal out of range for u8
 --> src/main.rs:2:17
  |
2 |     for i in 0..256u8 {
  |                 ^^^^^
  |
  = note: #[warn(overflowing_literals)] on by default

I believe it should additionally suggest using 0..=255u8 as a teaching aid.

[varkor]

This is a duplicate of #47213.