Mark further field sensitivity methods "nodiscard"

[tautschnig]

All methods are about their return values, not their side effects. This is to make sure we catch potential usage errors at compile time.

• Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
• n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
• n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
• Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
• n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
• My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
• n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 78.00% // Head: 78.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (9c6c183) compared to base (abf93f5).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #7258   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    78.00%   78.00%           
========================================
  Files         1621     1621           
  Lines       187273   187273           
========================================
  Hits        146089   146089           
  Misses       41184    41184           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/goto-symex/field_sensitivity.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.