This adds a RawStringOstream. Versus TestRawOstream, which is
consolidated over to RawStringOstream, it uses a string for storage
instead of a vector, mainly to support move-to-string semantics. Versus
llvm::raw_string_ostream, it owns the string and supports pwrite (which
is needed for driver and its fd_ostream compatibility requirement).
This converts most uses of llvm::raw_string_ostream, leaving behind a
few in InstNamer that explicitly cannot own the string, such as:
```
llvm::raw_string_ostream(name)
<< "_" << tree.tokens().GetColumnNumber(token);
```
I have this as its own library so that it can use CHECK.
Yes this doesn't save much code, but it's code we repeatedly write.
---------
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Rationale: this convention avoids forcing closely-related code to be far
apart in the namespace hierarchy, and vice versa. By the same token, it
makes the namespace hierarchy more consistent with the directory
hierarchy.
With the toolchain splitting namespaces, ostream.h's `operator<<`
templates aren't reliably found with name lookup, likely due to the loss
of associated namespaces (zygoloid commented on this at
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/3161#discussion_r1307941999).
This is especially a barrier to moving the lex files into `Carbon::Lex`;
versus other parts of the toolchain, they contain more printable types
which are used cross-namespace, including `Carbon::Testing`. As a
consequence, I'm looking at migrating ostream.h to a more reliable
approach that doesn't rely as much on everything being in the `Carbon`
namespace.
Replacing direct raw_string_ostream uses. I figure the wrapper should be used more consistently.
There are still remaining raw_string_ostream uses that weren't compatible -- I'm continuing to look at those, but felt it was cleaner to have this on its own.
This was bugging me after I saw all the strings; it feels like this is why we have EnumBase on the toolchain side.
I've included the move of EnumBase to //common because I figured it's reasonable to evaluate together; if we don't want EnumBase in this case, it doesn't make sense to move.
Jon Ross-PerkinsandGeoff Romer
josh11b