These get wrapped by clang-format currently.

LLDB has a few different styles of header guards and they're not very
consistent because things get moved around or copy/pasted. This patch
unifies the header guards across LLDB and converts everything to match
LLVM's style.

Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74743

Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:

> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.

I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:

Consider this code:

```
    struct Base {
      virtual ~Base(){}
    };

    struct SubClass : Base {
      ~SubClass() {
        std::cout << "It works!\n";
      }
    };

    int main() {
      std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
    }
```

If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.

[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555

Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik

Reviewed By: teemperor

Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440

llvm-svn: 359868

to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

llvm-svn: 320067

When introduced, breakpoint names were just tags that you could
apply to breakpoints that would allow you to refer to a breakpoint
when you couldn't capture the ID, or to refer to a collection of
breakpoints.  

This change makes the names independent holders of breakpoint options
that you can then apply to breakpoints when you add the name to the
breakpoint.  It adds the "breakpoint name configure" command to set
up or reconfigure breakpoint names.  There is also full support for
then in the SB API, including a new SBBreakpointName class.

The connection between the name and the breakpoints
sharing the name remains live, so if you reconfigure the name, all the
breakpoint options all change as well.  This allows a quick way
to share complex breakpoint behavior among a bunch of breakpoints, and
a convenient way to iterate on the set.

You can also create a name from a breakpoint, allowing a quick way
to copy options from one breakpoint to another.

I also added the ability to make hidden and delete/disable protected
names.  When applied to a breakpoint, you will only be able to list,
delete or disable that breakpoint if you refer to it explicitly by ID.

This feature will allow GUI's that need to use breakpoints for their
own purposes to keep their breakpoints from getting accidentally 
disabled or deleted.

<rdar://problem/22094452>

llvm-svn: 313292