Pull information on opcode support and the language used by the backend at runtime

[TomAFrench]

Problem

acvm-backend-barretenberg currently bakes in knowledge about barretenberg in so far as it reports that all opcodes are supported and that we're producing a plonkish proof with width 3.

This isn't general across all potential backends as we also support compiling down to a R1CS, etc.

Happy Case

We should make a call to the backend and construct a (Language, Box<impl Fn(&Opcode) -> bool>) which can then be passed back and down into ACVM during circuit transformation.

This will replace the usage of these methods:

noir/crates/acvm_backend_barretenberg/src/proof_system.rs

Lines 15 to 17 in 255febd

	pub fn np_language(&self) -> Language {
	Language::PLONKCSat { width: 3 }
	}

noir/crates/acvm_backend_barretenberg/src/proof_system.rs

Lines 33 to 56 in 255febd

	pub fn supports_opcode(&self, opcode: &Opcode) -> bool {
	match opcode {
	Opcode::Arithmetic(_) => true,
	Opcode::Directive(_) => true,
	Opcode::Brillig(_) => true,
	Opcode::MemoryInit { .. } => true,
	Opcode::MemoryOp { .. } => true,
	Opcode::BlackBoxFuncCall(func) => match func.get_black_box_func() {
	BlackBoxFunc::AND
	| BlackBoxFunc::XOR
	| BlackBoxFunc::RANGE
	| BlackBoxFunc::SHA256
	| BlackBoxFunc::Blake2s
	| BlackBoxFunc::Keccak256
	| BlackBoxFunc::SchnorrVerify
	| BlackBoxFunc::Pedersen
	| BlackBoxFunc::HashToField128Security
	| BlackBoxFunc::EcdsaSecp256k1
	| BlackBoxFunc::EcdsaSecp256r1
	| BlackBoxFunc::FixedBaseScalarMul
	| BlackBoxFunc::RecursiveAggregation => true,
	},
	}
	}

Alternatives Considered

No response

Additional Context

No response

Would you like to submit a PR for this Issue?

Yes

Support Needs

No response