Use that instead of `AddInstInNoBlock` to get the value of an
instruction when evaluation might depend on the `InstId` but only the
`ConstantId` of the instruction is desired by the consumer.
For each kind of instruction, specify whether its constant evaluation
needs an `InstId` or not. If it does, ensure that all constant
evaluation of that instruction provides one. Otherwise, allow calling
into the evaluator without providing an `InstId`.
This allows us to reliably use the `InstId` in evaluation steps that
either need a location or need to look at the original operands of the
instruction prior to evaluation, and also to support `TryEvalInst` calls
safely for instructions whose evaluation does not need an `InstId`.
This in particular uses free functions because it's likely to end up
more consistent with types (versus a wrapper object for InstStore).
Note, this is unlikely to have a performance impact, but if it does, we
can look into related approaches (and we've already discussed using
LTO).
Renames `PendingBlock::AddInst` to `PendingBlock::Add` because
`MakeElementAccessInst` expects the matching name to exist.
Richard Smith
Jon Ross-Perkins