Reapply "DebugInfo: Generalize debug info location handling"

Originally committed in r224385 and reverted in r224441 due to concerns
this change might've introduced a crash. Turns out this change fixes the
crash introduced by one of my earlier more specific location handling
changes (those specific fixes are reverted by this patch, in favor of
the more general solution).

Recommitted in r224941 and reverted in r224970 after it caused a crash
when building compiler-rt. Looks to be due to this change zeroing out
the debug location when emitting default arguments (which were meant to
inherit their outer expression's location) thus creating call
instructions without locations - these create problems for inlining and
must not be created. That is fixed and tested in this version of the
change.

Original commit message:

This is a more scalable (fixed in mostly one place, rather than many
places that will need constant improvement/maintenance) solution to
several commits I've made recently to increase source fidelity for
subexpressions.

This resetting had to be done at the DebugLoc level (not the
SourceLocation level) to preserve scoping information (if the resetting
was done with CGDebugInfo::EmitLocation, it would've caused the tail end
of an expression's codegen to end up in a potentially different scope
than the start, even though it was at the same source location). The
drawback to this is that it might leave CGDebugInfo out of sync. Ideally
CGDebugInfo shouldn't have a duplicate sense of the current
SourceLocation, but for now it seems it does... - I don't think I'm
going to tackle removing that just now.

I expect this'll probably cause some more buildbot fallout & I'll
investigate that as it comes up.

Also these sort of improvements might be starting to show a weakness/bug
in LLVM's line table handling: we don't correctly emit is_stmt for
statements, we just put it on every line table entry. This means one
statement split over multiple lines appears as multiple 'statements' and
two statements on one line (without column info) are treated as one
statement.

I don't think we have any IR representation of statements that would
help us distinguish these cases and identify the beginning of each
statement - so that might be something we need to add (possibly to the
lexical scope chain - a scope for each statement). This does cause some
problems for GDB and possibly other DWARF consumers.