chore(ACIR): try to use constant expressions in memory ops

[asterite]

Description

Problem

No issue, just trying to simplify the generated ACIR so it's easier to understand.

Summary

I'm actually not sure this is a valid change. However, all tests pass for me locally. I think it does lead to shorter ACIR, especially for slice operations.

Additional Context

Documentation

Check one:

• No documentation needed.
• Documentation included in this PR.
• [For Experimental Features] Documentation to be submitted in a separate PR.

PR Checklist

• I have tested the changes locally.
• I have formatted the changes with Prettier and/or cargo fmt on default settings.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'Execution Time'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.20.

Benchmark suite	Current: 3b9ed50	Previous: 2e78193	Ratio
semaphore-depth-10	0.051 s	0.042 s	1.21

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @TomAFrench

[github-actions]

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'ACVM Benchmarks'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.20.

Benchmark suite	Current: 2401086	Previous: dc79733	Ratio
perfectly_parallel_batch_inversion_opcodes	2779293 ns/iter (± 3670)	2257462 ns/iter (± 6119)	1.23

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @TomAFrench

[github-actions]

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'Compilation Time'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.20.

Benchmark suite	Current: 2401086	Previous: dc79733	Ratio
private-kernel-reset	9.55 s	7.544 s	1.27

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @TomAFrench

[asterite]

Hmm... "Reports / Circuit sizes" always fails so there must be something wrong in this PR..

[vezenovm]

Hmm... "Reports / Circuit sizes" always fails so there must be something wrong in this PR..

It is most likely failing when we try to serialize to barretenberg. You will have to re-run locally to see which tests are breaking. Although it is surprising to me that just using constants would fail as a similar experiment was done in #9970 (comment) and I was able to call into the backend.

[asterite]

I finally managed to install bb (the previous days the download file was giving 404) and I see it segfaults when running bb on the array_dynamic program. So maybe it is some serialization issue.

Given that this is just cosmetic, I'll close this PR.