Added support for div-rem const folding.

[orizi]

Stack:

• Added const-folding *_eq with 0 into *_iz_zero. #6454
• Const propagation for ops with special operands. #6453
• Refactored setting constant and returning statement together. #6436
• Added *_eq const folding. #6435
• Enabled const-folding cancelation for e2e tests. #6434
• Added support for div-rem const folding. #6433 ⬅

⚠️ Part of a stack created by spr. Do not merge manually using the UI - doing so may have unexpected results.

---

This change is 

[gilbens-starkware]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @orizi)

---

crates/cairo-lang-lowering/src/optimizations/const_folding.rs line 229 at r1 (raw file):

        &mut self,
        stmt: &mut StatementCall,
    ) -> Option<(StatementConst, Option<StatementConst>)> {

Isn't a potentially empty vec of additional consts more expressive in this case?

Suggestion:

Vec<StatementConst>

[orizi]

Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @gilbens-starkware)

---

crates/cairo-lang-lowering/src/optimizations/const_folding.rs line 229 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, gilbens-starkware (Gil Ben-Shachar) wrote…

Isn't a potentially empty vec of additional consts more expressive in this case?

maybe just adding the additionals vec as a parameter.
returning a vec entitled more.

[gilbens-starkware]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @orizi)

---

crates/cairo-lang-lowering/src/optimizations/const_folding.rs line 229 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, orizi wrote…

maybe just adding the additionals vec as a parameter.
returning a vec entitled more.

I'm fine with any of these

[gilbens-starkware]

Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @orizi)

---

crates/cairo-lang-lowering/src/optimizations/const_folding.rs line 229 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, gilbens-starkware (Gil Ben-Shachar) wrote…

I'm fine with any of these

But yes, a vec parameter seems good, as the output simply extends a vec anyway

[orizi]

Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @gilbens-starkware)

---

crates/cairo-lang-lowering/src/optimizations/const_folding.rs line 229 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, gilbens-starkware (Gil Ben-Shachar) wrote…

But yes, a vec parameter seems good, as the output simply extends a vec anyway

it is somewhat of a discrepancy with the other block-end handler.
(and there we directly add to the block statements - which is somewhat better than prepending)
but will do anyway.

[gilbens-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @orizi)