C++: Fix joins in AV Rule 145

[MathiasVP]

Another join order issue reported by the C++ nightly DCA run.

Before:

[2023-12-15 11:55:06] Evaluated non-recursive predicate AVRule145::enumThatHasConstantWithImplicitValue/1#42617793@cb2a023l in 124ms (size: 512).
Evaluated relational algebra for predicate AVRule145::enumThatHasConstantWithImplicitValue/1#42617793@cb2a023l with tuple counts:
                      {3} r1 = `Enum::Enum.getEnumConstant/1#dispred#8bfe8fc8` AND NOT `_Enum::Enum.getEnumConstant/1#dispred#8bfe8fc8_Enum::EnumConstant.getInitializer/0#dispred#ee634a2f___#antijoin_rhs`(FIRST 3)
    12570      ~1%    {2} r2 = SCAN r1 OUTPUT In.0, In.1
    12557      ~1%    {2} r3 = STREAM DEDUP r2
  8703841      ~3%    {4} r4 = JOIN r3 WITH `Enum::Enum.getEnumConstant/1#dispred#8bfe8fc8` ON FIRST 1 OUTPUT Lhs.0, Lhs.1, Rhs.1, Rhs.2
                      {4} r5 = REWRITE r4 WITH TEST InOut.2 > InOut.1
  4352791  ~35629%    {2} r6 = SCAN r5 OUTPUT In.3, In.0
                      {2} r7 = r6 AND NOT `AVRule145::hasReferenceInitializer/1#29d4de8d`(FIRST 1)
    31927   ~6556%    {1} r8 = SCAN r7 OUTPUT In.1
                      return r8

After:

[2023-12-15 12:43:19] Evaluated non-recursive predicate AVRule145::hasNextWithoutReferenceInitializer/2#e96837d9@6b51958n in 3ms (size: 18233).
Evaluated relational algebra for predicate AVRule145::hasNextWithoutReferenceInitializer/2#e96837d9@6b51958n with tuple counts:
  19733  ~1%    {3} r1 = SCAN `project#AVRule145::getNonReferenceInitializedEnumConstantByRank/2#f5f4d30a` OUTPUT In.0, _, In.1
  19733  ~5%    {2} r2 = REWRITE r1 WITH Tmp.1 := 1, Out.1 := (In.2 - Tmp.1) KEEPING 2
  18233  ~1%    {2} r3 = JOIN r2 WITH `AVRule145::getNonReferenceInitializedEnumConstantByRank/2#f5f4d30a` ON FIRST 2 OUTPUT Lhs.0, Rhs.2
                return r3

[2023-12-15 12:43:19] Evaluated non-recursive predicate _AVRule145::hasNextWithoutReferenceInitializer/2#e96837d9_Enum::EnumConstant.getDeclaringEnum/0#disp__#antijoin_rhs@6725679k in 10ms (size: 6200).
Evaluated relational algebra for predicate _AVRule145::hasNextWithoutReferenceInitializer/2#e96837d9_Enum::EnumConstant.getDeclaringEnum/0#disp__#antijoin_rhs@6725679k with tuple counts:
  18233    ~0%    {2} r1 = SCAN `AVRule145::hasNextWithoutReferenceInitializer/2#e96837d9` OUTPUT In.1, In.0
  18233    ~0%    {2} r2 = JOIN r1 WITH `Enum::EnumConstant.getDeclaringEnum/0#dispred#499b6219` ON FIRST 2 OUTPUT Lhs.0, Lhs.1
  51467    ~4%    {3} r3 = JOIN r2 WITH `Enum::EnumConstant.getInitializer/0#dispred#ee634a2f` ON FIRST 1 OUTPUT Rhs.1, Lhs.1, Lhs.0
  25092  ~302%    {2} r4 = JOIN r3 WITH `Initializer::Initializer.fromSource/0#dispred#f0cb3831#b` ON FIRST 1 OUTPUT Lhs.1, Lhs.2
                  return r4

[2023-12-15 12:43:19] Evaluated non-recursive predicate AVRule145::enumThatHasConstantWithImplicitValue/1#42617793@0f4a1eds in 3ms (size: 512).
Evaluated relational algebra for predicate AVRule145::enumThatHasConstantWithImplicitValue/1#42617793@0f4a1eds with tuple counts:
  18233     ~0%    {2} r1 = SCAN `AVRule145::hasNextWithoutReferenceInitializer/2#e96837d9` OUTPUT In.1, In.0
  18233     ~1%    {2} r2 = JOIN r1 WITH `Enum::EnumConstant.getDeclaringEnum/0#dispred#499b6219` ON FIRST 2 OUTPUT Lhs.1, Lhs.0
                   {2} r3 = r2 AND NOT `_AVRule145::hasNextWithoutReferenceInitializer/2#e96837d9_Enum::EnumConstant.getDeclaringEnum/0#disp__#antijoin_rhs`(FIRST 2)
  12033  ~2409%    {1} r4 = SCAN r3 OUTPUT In.0
                   return r4

[MathiasVP]

Hmm... DCA seems to suggest I made a logic error somewhere 🤔