If we're not touching them, we don't need to do anything special to pass
them along -- with one important caveat: due to how cmake arguments
work, the implicitly passed arguments need to be specified before
arguments that we handle.

This isn't particularly nice, but the alternative is enumerating all
arguments that can be used by llvm_add_library and the macros it calls
(it also relies on implicit passing of some arguments to
llvm_process_sources).

Depends on https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142163

This patch makes the `-ast-dump-filter` Clang option available to the
`target modules dump ast` command. This allows us to selectively dump
parts of the AST by name.

The AST can quickly grow way too large to skim on the console. This will
aid in debugging AST related issues.

Example:
```
(lldb) target modules dump ast --filter func
Dumping clang ast for 48 modules.
Dumping func:
FunctionDecl 0xc4b785008 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> func 'void (int)' extern
|-ParmVarDecl 0xc4b7853d8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> x 'int'
`-AsmLabelAttr 0xc4b785358 <<invalid sloc>> Implicit "_Z4funcIiEvT_"

Dumping func<int>:
FunctionDecl 0xc4b7850b8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> func<int> 'void (int)' implicit_instantiation extern
|-TemplateArgument type 'int'
| `-BuiltinType 0xc4b85b110 'int'
`-ParmVarDecl 0xc4b7853d8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> x 'int'
```

The majority of this patch is adjust the `Dump` API. The main change in
behaviour is in `TypeSystemClang::Dump`, where we now use the
`ASTPrinter` for dumping the `TranslationUnitDecl`. This is where the
`-ast-dump-filter` functionality lives in Clang.

The original PR is #132274.

Co-authored-by: @bulbazord Alex Langford

Reverts llvm/llvm-project#132274

Broke a test on LLDB Widows on Arm:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/141/builds/7726
```
FAIL: test_dwarf (lldbsuite.test.lldbtest.TestExternCSymbols.test_dwarf)
<...>
    self.assertTrue(self.res.Succeeded(), msg + output)

AssertionError: False is not true : Command 'expression -- foo()' did not return successfully

Error output:

error: Couldn't look up symbols:

  int foo(void)

Hint: The expression tried to call a function that is not present in the target, perhaps because it was optimized out by the compiler.
```

This patch addresses the issue #129543.
After this patch the size of lldb-server is reduced by 9MB.

Co-authored-by: @bulbazord Alex Langford

LineSeqeunce is basically a vector, except that users aren't supposed to
know that. This implements the same concept in a slightly simpler
fashion.

The `DWARFASTParserClang` reads enum values as `int64_t`s regardless of
the enumerators signedness. Then we pass it to
`AddEnumerationValueToEnumerationType` and only then do we create an
`APSInt` from it. However, there are other places where we read/pass
around the enum value as unsigned. This patch makes sure we consistently
use the same integer type for the enum value and let `APSInt` take care
of signedness. This shouldn't have any observable effect.

While sifting through this part of the code I noticed that when we parse
C++ methods, `DWARFASTParserClang` creates two sets of `ParmVarDecls`,
one in `ParseChildParameters` and once in `AddMethodToCXXRecordType`.
The former is unused when we're dealing with methods. Moreover, the
`ParmVarDecls` we created in `ParseChildParameters` were created with an
incorrect `clang::DeclContext` (namely the DeclContext of the function,
and not the function itself). In Clang, there's
`ParmVarDecl::setOwningFunction` to adjust the DeclContext of a
parameter if the parameter was created before the FunctionDecl. But we
never used it.

This patch removes the `ParmVarDecl` creation from
`ParseChildParameters` and instead creates a
`TypeSystemClang::CreateParameterDeclarations` that ensures we set the
DeclContext correctly.

Note there is one differences in how `ParmVarDecl`s would be created
now: we won't set a ClangASTMetadata entry for any of the parameters. I
don't think this was ever actually useful for parameter DIEs anyway.

This wasn't causing any concrete issues (that I know of), but was quite
surprising. And this way of setting the parameters seems easier to
reason about (in my opinion).

This is the behavior expected by DWARF. It also requires some fixups to
algorithms which were storing the addresses of some objects (Blocks and
Variables) relative to the beginning of the function.

There are plenty of things that still don't work in this setups, but
this change is sufficient for the expression evaluator to correctly
recognize the entry point of a function in this case.