Eliminate the `lldb_private::dwarf` namespace, in favor of using
`llvm::dwarf` directly. The latter is shorter, and this avoids ambiguity
in the ABI plugins that define a `dwarf` namespace inside an anonymous
namespace.

This patch replaces (llvm::|)Optional< with std::optional<.  I'll post
a separate patch to clean up the "using" declarations, #include
"llvm/ADT/Optional.h", etc.

This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716

This patch adds #include <optional> to those files containing
llvm::Optional<...> or Optional<...>.

I'll post a separate patch to actually replace llvm::Optional with
std::optional.

This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716

This patch mechanically replaces None with std::nullopt where the
compiler would warn if None were deprecated.  The intent is to reduce
the amount of manual work required in migrating from Optional to
std::optional.

This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716

We have using namespace llvm::dwarf in dwarf.h header globally. Replacing that
with a using namespace within lldb_private::dwarf and moving to a
using namespace lldb_private::dwarf in .cpp files and fully qualified names
in the few header files.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120836

Summary:
A *.cpp file header in LLDB (and in LLDB) should like this:
```
//===-- TestUtilities.cpp -------------------------------------------------===//
```
However in LLDB most of our source files have arbitrary changes to this format and
these changes are spreading through LLDB as folks usually just use the existing
source files as templates for their new files (most notably the unnecessary
editor language indicator `-*- C++ -*-` is spreading and in every review
someone is pointing out that this is wrong, resulting in people pointing out that this
is done in the same way in other files).

This patch removes most of these inconsistencies including the editor language indicators,
all the different missing/additional '-' characters, files that center the file name, missing
trailing `===//` (mostly caused by clang-format breaking the line).

Reviewers: aprantl, espindola, jfb, shafik, JDevlieghere

Reviewed By: JDevlieghere

Subscribers: dexonsmith, wuzish, emaste, sdardis, nemanjai, kbarton, MaskRay, atanasyan, arphaman, jfb, abidh, jsji, JDevlieghere, usaxena95, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73258

Summary:
Previously we moved the code which parses a single expression out of the PDB
plugin, because that was useful for DWARF expressions in breakpad. However, FPO
programs are used in breakpad files too (when unwinding on windows), so this
completes the job, and moves the rest of the FPO parser too.

Reviewers: amccarth, aleksandr.urakov

Subscribers: aprantl, markmentovai, rnk, lldb-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66634

llvm-svn: 369894

Summary:
This is necessary to support parsing expressions like ".cfa -16 + ^", as
that format is used in breakpad STACK CFI expressions.

Since the PDB expressions use the same parser, this change will affect
them too, but I don't believe that should be a problem in practice. If
PDBs do contain the negative values, it's very likely that they are
intended to be parsed the same way, and if they don't, then it doesn't
matter.

In case that we do ever need to handle this differently, we can always
make the parser behavior customizable, or just use a different parser.

To make sure that the integer size is big enough for everyone, I switch
from using a (unsigned) 32-bit integer to a 64-bit (signed) one.

Reviewers: amccarth, clayborg, aleksandr.urakov

Subscribers: markmentovai, lldb-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61311

llvm-svn: 360166

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

Summary:
This node represents can be used to refer to the initial value, which is
sometimes pushed onto the DWARF stack as the "input" to the DWARF
expression. The typical use case (and the reason why I'm introducing it)
is that the "Canonical Frame Address" is passed this way to the DWARF
expressions computing the values of registers during frame unwind.

The nodes are converted into dwarf by keeping track of DWARF stack depth
an any given point, and then copying the initial value from the bottom
of the stack via the DW_OP_pick opcode. This could be made more
efficient for simple expressions, but here I chose to start with the
most general implementation possible.

Reviewers: amccarth, clayborg, aleksandr.urakov

Subscribers: aprantl, jasonmolenda, lldb-commits, markmentovai

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61183

llvm-svn: 359560