[EVM] Use Keccak256 hash-ed linker symbols in LLVM MC/LLD

[PavelKopyl]

The patch is required to overcome the issue with nasty symbols in the datasize/dataoffset arguments. Instead of using file paths as symbols names we use their Keccak256 hashes.

Code Review Checklist

Purpose

Ticket Number

Requirements

• Have the requirements been met?
• Have stakeholder(s) approved the change?

Implementation

• Does this code change accomplish what it is supposed to do?
• Can this solution be simplified?
• Does this change add unwanted compile-time or run-time dependencies?
• Could an additional framework, API, library, or service improve the solution?
• Could we reuse part of LLVM instead of implementing the patch or a part of it?
• Is the code at the right abstraction level?
• Is the code modular enough?
• Can a better solution be found in terms of maintainability, readability, performance, or security?
• Does similar functionality already exist in the codebase? If yes, why isn’t it reused?
• Are there any best practices, design patterns or language-specific patterns that could substantially improve this code?

Logic Errors and Bugs

• Can you think of any use case in which the
  code does not behave as intended?
• Can you think of any inputs or external events
  that could break the code?

Error Handling and Logging

• Is error handling done the correct way?
• Should any logging or debugging information
  be added or removed?
• Are error messages user-friendly?
• Are there enough log events and are they
  written in a way that allows for easy
  debugging?

Maintainability

• Is the code easy to read?
• Is the code not repeated (DRY Principle)?
• Is the code method/class not too long?

Dependencies

• Were updates to documentation, configuration, or readme files made as required by this change?
• Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?

Security

• Does the code introduce any security vulnerabilities?

Performance

• Do you think this code change decreases
  system performance?
• Do you see any potential to improve the
  performance of the code significantly?

Testing and Testability

• Is the code testable?
• Have automated tests been added, or have related ones been updated to cover the change?
  • For changes to mutable state
• Do tests reasonably cover the code change (unit/integration/system tests)?
  • Line Coverage
  • Region Coverage
  • Branch Coverage
• Are there some test cases, input or edge cases
  that should be tested in addition?

Readability

• Is the code easy to understand?
• Which parts were confusing to you and why?
• Can the readability of the code be improved by
  smaller methods?
• Can the readability of the code be improved by
  different function, method or variable names?
• Is the code located in the right
  file/folder/package?
• Do you think certain methods should be
  restructured to have a more intuitive control
  flow?
• Is the data flow understandable?
• Are there redundant or outdated comments?
• Could some comments convey the message
  better?
• Would more comments make the code more
  understandable?
• Could some comments be removed by making the code itself more readable?
• Is there any commented-out code?
• Have you run a spelling and grammar checker?

Documentation

• Is there sufficient documentation?
• Is the ReadMe.md file up to date?

Best Practices

• Follow Single Responsibility principle?
• Are different errors handled correctly?
• Are errors and warnings logged?
• Magic values avoided?
• No unnecessary comments?
• Minimal nesting used?

Experts' Opinion

• Do you think a specific expert, like a security
  expert or a usability expert, should look over
  the code before it can be accepted?
• Will this code change impact different teams, and should they review the change as well?

[vladimirradosavljevic]

LGTM. Thanks!
Please also wait for @akiramenai to approve.

[vladimirradosavljevic]

@PavelKopyl Could you please squash commits to make CI green?

[akiramenai]

LGTM, please squash.