We frequently want to operate on singletons. Per discussion, drop
`Singleton` to make the code shorter.
This started off as wanting to write `inst_id.is_error()`, but the
dependency relationship between ids.h and singleton_insts.h would
require some kind of delayed evaluation to allow the implementation to
remain in headers (which I suspect is helpful to have for inlining). I
could have added something like `IsErrorInst`, forward declared in ids.h
and defined in singleton_insts.h (which would always be included by
typed_insts.h), but the template approach felt like a decent balance
between (a) removing the boilerplate `::SingletonInstId`, (b)
understandability, (c) still visually mirroring if we immediately return
a singleton, and (d) flexibility for more than just `ErrorInst`. But TBH
I'd probably still have written `is_error()` if it didn't require
addressing the cross-header cycle.
Then I tried `SemIR::InstId::Is<SemIR::ErrorInst>`, which generally
worked with types but generated the complaint that it didn't shorten
*all* singleton uses. So pulling back on `::Is`, and instead just
dropping `Singleton`.
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`.
Jon Ross-Perkins
Richard Smith