[mlir] Remove support for non-prefixed accessors

[rriddle]

Summary

This finishes off a year long pursuit to LLVMify the generated
operation accessors, prefixing them with get/set. Support for
any other accessor naming is fully removed after this commit.

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/psa-raw-accessors-are-being-removed/65629

[tpopp]

Are you still going to wait until early November, or are you going to commit it this week?

[rriddle]

In D136727#3884816, @tpopp wrote:

Are you still going to wait until early November, or are you going to commit it this week?

I'll wait until early November (like in the post), just sent this out to prepare for that.

[Mogball]

The End of an Era

[tpopp]

In D136727#3886133, @rriddle wrote:

In D136727#3884816, @tpopp wrote:

Are you still going to wait until early November, or are you going to commit it this week?

I'll wait until early November (like in the post), just sent this out to prepare for that.

Thank you, and I hope my question wasn't too abrupt, as I just wanted to check while preparing for handling this in my org.

[rriddle]

In D136727#3897964, @tpopp wrote:

In D136727#3886133, @rriddle wrote:

In D136727#3884816, @tpopp wrote:

Are you still going to wait until early November, or are you going to commit it this week?

I'll wait until early November (like in the post), just sent this out to prepare for that.

Thank you, and I hope my question wasn't too abrupt, as I just wanted to check while preparing for handling this in my org.

No worries at all!

[mehdi_amini]

Do you think we could wait until after the LLVM Dev meeting MLIR Summit to land this? We're kind of scrambling around these days and still working on preparing for this to land.

[rriddle]

In D136727#3898123, @mehdi_amini wrote:

Do you think we could wait until after the LLVM Dev meeting MLIR Summit to land this? We're kind of scrambling around these days and still working on preparing for this to land.

Yeah, that's fine.

[tpopp]

In D136727#3898124, @rriddle wrote:

In D136727#3898123, @mehdi_amini wrote:

Do you think we could wait until after the LLVM Dev meeting MLIR Summit to land this? We're kind of scrambling around these days and still working on preparing for this to land.

Yeah, that's fine.

Thank you very much for waiting a while more on this.

[jpienaar]

Nice amount of red :-)

mlir/docs/DefiningDialects.md

305

Is this recorded somewhere still post? This is default now.

We may also want to warn when attributes overlap with more helpful message in the case where it is due to this transform, e.g., t and T now map to same accessor where it didn't before and some renaming would be needed (a bit unfortunate that I didn't add that check earlier). [Not blocker, could just be GitHub issue too]

[rriddle]

mlir/docs/DefiningDialects.md

305

I think we do emit an error if we generate an overlap, but not sure it's the nicest error.

Added back a blurb on accessor generation.