This PR makes `simp` consult its own cache more often, to avoid
replicating work.
Before, the simp cache was checked upon entry of `simpImpl` only, which
then calls `simpLoop`, which recursively iterates the `pre`-lemmas,
without checking the cache again.
Now, `simpLoop` itself checks the cache. This seems more principled,
given that `simpLoop` is actually putting entries into the cache for
each of its calls, so it’s more uniform if it checks the cache itself.
This avoids repeated rewrites. For example given
```
theorem ab : a = b := testSorry
theorem bc : b = c := testSorry
example (h : P c) : P b ∧ P a := by simp [ab, bc, h]
```
simp would rewrite `b ==> c` twice (once as part of `b ==> c` and then
again as part of `a ==> b ==> c`). And it’d be order dependent: With
```
example (h : P c) : P a ∧ P b := by simp [ab, bc, h]
```
the `a ==> b ==> c` chain would insert `b ==> c` into the cache, and
picked up by `simpImpl` when rewriting `P b`.
With this change, `b ==> c` is performed only once in both examples.
Instruction counts on stdlib and mathlib both show a mild improvement
across the board (0.5%), with individual modules improving by up to 4%
in stdlib and even more in mathlib.
(This does not check the cache before applying `post`, which explains
where there are still some repeated rewrites in the trace logs. But I’m
less sure about inserting a cache check here and so I am treading
carefully here. It’s also going to be at most one `post` application
that’s duplicated, because if `post` returns `.visit`, we go back to
`pre` and thus a cache check.)
2441bf1f76