[Refactor] Remove all ctx parameters in memory operators

[Critsium-xy]

After Abacus start using template to implement caculation on different devices, the ctx parameter in operators became fully useless. But it is never removed because of its heavy usage. This pull request removes the ctx parameters in all memory operators.

Hint: If this pr is accepted, other pull requests may need rerun to ensure they are correct.

[Qianruipku]

It may be necessary to have a unified naming convention to distinguish whether this is a device or CPU resize_memory?

[Critsium-xy]

It may be necessary to have a unified naming convention to distinguish whether this is a device or CPU resize_memory?

In fact every type of operators have its own unique name defined by using keyword in memory_op.h, which clearly shows an operator's data type and device type. But no one uses that in fact. I used it in my new prs.

These new functions are also available for this

By using AbacusDevice_t you can clearly see which device this operator is operating, but this is merged yesterday so no one used it temporarily.

[AsTonyshment]

Nice work! I'm currently struggling with including things like this in my code:

Device* ctx = {};
base_device::DEVICE_CPU* cpu_ctx = {};

I was wondering what the hack exactly does this do? It seems that these pointers are no longer used after a total refactoring.

[Qianruipku]

It may be necessary to have a unified naming convention to distinguish whether this is a device or CPU resize_memory?

In fact every type of operators have its own unique name defined by using keyword in memory_op.h, which clearly shows an operator's data type and device type. But no one uses that in fact. I used it in my new prs.

These new functions are also available for this

By using AbacusDevice_t you can clearly see which device this operator is operating, but this is merged yesterday so no one used it temporarily.

No one uses the using names defined in memory_op.h because they are not compatible with templates. Therefore, it is necessary to add extra using names in the definition of the template class. My suggestion is that although each class needs to include this using name, there should be a unified naming convention to distinguish between CPU and device, as well as between complex and real types. This would improve the readability of the code.

[Critsium-xy]

Exactly. I will soon add that suggested naming convention in the document later. But it seemed that this problem has no relationship with this pull request I think? Because the ctx parameter is completely useless as a parameter. Many codes even directly use a same "ctx" variable in every place where a ctx parameter is needed, no matter it is a gpu operator or cpu operator. I just removed it from parameter, not removing it from the template.