Rename accessors of class Field to make it more apparent as to what is being accessed - static fiel…

runtime/vm/flow_graph_builder.cc

Index: runtime/vm/flow_graph_builder.cc
diff --git a/runtime/vm/flow_graph_builder.cc b/runtime/vm/flow_graph_builder.cc
index 8214f6950606214653259bbf168e7cb89375d6cc..b2e384ecd03b60d83fc64e87af0084e8887f26fb 100644
--- a/runtime/vm/flow_graph_builder.cc
+++ b/runtime/vm/flow_graph_builder.cc
@@ -3803,10 +3803,11 @@ void EffectGraphVisitor::VisitStoreInstanceFieldNode(
 
 void EffectGraphVisitor::VisitLoadStaticFieldNode(LoadStaticFieldNode* node) {
   if (node->field().is_const()) {
-    ASSERT(node->field().value() != Object::sentinel().raw());
-    ASSERT(node->field().value() != Object::transition_sentinel().raw());
-    Definition* result =
-        new(Z) ConstantInstr(Instance::ZoneHandle(Z, node->field().value()));
+    ASSERT(node->field().StaticFieldValue() != Object::sentinel().raw());
+    ASSERT(node->field().StaticFieldValue() !=

[hausner, 2015/09/01 16:02:02]

field().StaticFieldValue() seems a bit redundant, with the word Field contained
twice.  I didn't have a problem with field().value().

[siva, 2015/09/03 23:32:09]

I have renamed this to StaticValue as suggested by Ryan.
I feel field().StaticValue() is more readable that field().value() which appears
to be like a regular accessor that we have for fields and  it could return
whatever is in value_ (offset or static value).

+           Object::transition_sentinel().raw());
+    Definition* result = new(Z) ConstantInstr(
+        Instance::ZoneHandle(Z, node->field().StaticFieldValue()));
     return ReturnDefinition(result);
   }
   Value* field_value = Bind(new(Z) ConstantInstr(node->field()));