In the [value categories RFC](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/70086), I proposed that the end state of the migration should be that `getValue()` should only be legal to call on prvalues.
As a stepping stone, to allow migrating off existing calls to `getValue()`, I proposed introducing `getValueStrict()`, which would already have the new semantics.
However, I've now reconsidered this. Any expression, whether prvalue or glvalue, has a value, so really there isn't any reason to forbid calling `getValue()` on glvalues. I'm therefore removing the deprecation from `getValue()` and transitioning existing `getValueStrict()` calls back to `getValue()`.
The other "strict" accessors are a different case. `setValueStrict()` should only be called on prvalues because glvalues need to have a storage location associated with them; it doesn't make sense to only set a value for them. And, of course, `getStorageLocationStrict()` and `setStorageLocationStrict()` should obviously only be called on glvalues because prvalues don't have storage locations.
Reviewed By: ymandel, xazax.hun
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155921
e95134b9cb