Add support for microsoft-qc provider

[xinyi-joffre]

Add support for new microsoft-qc provider.

This new provider, called Microsoft Quantum Computing will contain all future targets for Microsoft's first party quantum offerings. With targets such as:

• microsoft.estimator
• microsoft.sim.*
• microsoft.qpu.*

For now, maintain support for older provider called Microsoft.Simulator (soon to be deprecated) and older targets such as:

• microsoft.simulator.*

[cesarzc]

What exactly is this change for? I don't think there is currently a processor architecture that would fall in this category and the chosen naming convention is also unclear to me. I see that the instruction set and the profile matches the MicrosoftSimulator definition. Why not resolve the processor architecture to MicrosoftSimulator?

This work is to introduce a new target naming convention.

I made a similar comment and suggested this could be handled by resolving the new target names to the MicrosoftSimulator architecture (see here).

[bettinaheim]

What exactly is this change for? I don't think there is currently a processor architecture that would fall in this category and the chosen naming convention is also unclear to me. I see that the instruction set and the profile matches the MicrosoftSimulator definition. Why not resolve the processor architecture to MicrosoftSimulator?

This work is to introduce a new target naming convention.

I made a similar comment and suggested this could be handled by resolving the new target names to the MicrosoftSimulator architecture (see here).

Got it. If this is only about naming conventions for targets, then the only change should be to check if the ExecutionTarget matches the new naming convention and set the ResolvedProcessorArchitecture to the same value as the current naming is set to. There is no need to add anything else; agreed with @cesarzc.