Recommit "[DWARFDebugLine] Avoid dumping prologue members we did not parse"

Recommit "[DWARFDebugLine] Avoid dumping prologue members we did not parse"

The patch was reverted in 69da40033 because of test failures on windows.
The problem was the unpredictable order of some of the error messages,
which I've tried to strenghten in that patch.

It turns out this is not possible to do in verbose mode because there
the data is being writted as it is being parsed. No amount of flushing
(as I've done in the non-verbose mode) will help that. Indeed, even
without any buffering the warning messages can end in the middle of a
line in non-verbose mode.

In this patch, I have reverted the changes which tested the relative
position of the warning message, except for the messages about
unsupported initial length, which are the ones I really wanted to test,
and which do come out reasonably.

The original commit message was:

This patch if motivated by D74560, specifically the subthread about what
to print upon encountering reserved initial length values.

If the debug_line prologue has an unsupported version, we skip parsing
the rest of the data. If we encounter an reserved initial length field,
we don't even parse the version. However, we still print out all members
(with value 0) in the dump function.

This patch introduces early exits in the Prologue::dump function so that
we print only the fields that were parsed successfully. In case of an
unsupported version, we skip printing all subsequent prologue fields --
because we don't even know if this version has those fields. In case of a
reserved unit length, we don't print anything -- if the very first field
of the prologue is invalid, it's hard to say if we even have a prologue
to begin with.

Note that the user will still be able to see the invalid/reserved
initial length value in the error message. I've modified (reordered)
debug_line_invalid.test to show that the error message comes straight
after the debug_line offset. I've also added some flush() calls to the
dumping code to ensure this is the case in all situations (without that,
the warnings could get out of sync if the output was not a terminal -- I
guess this is why std::iostreams have the tie() function).

Reviewers: jhenderson, ikudrin, dblaikie

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75043