[llvm] [XCOFF][obj2yaml] support parsing auxiliary symbols for XCOFF (PR #70642)

[via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -106,6 +111,79 @@ Error XCOFFDumper::dumpSections(ArrayRef<Shdr> Sections) {
   return Error::success();
 }
 
+static void
+dumpFileAuxSym(std::vector<std::unique_ptr<XCOFFYAML::AuxSymbolEnt>> &AuxEntTbl,
+               XCOFF::CFileStringType Type, StringRef FileStr) {
+  XCOFFYAML::FileAuxEnt FileAuxSym;
+  FileAuxSym.FileNameOrString = FileStr;
+  FileAuxSym.FileStringType = Type;
+  AuxEntTbl.push_back(std::make_unique<XCOFFYAML::FileAuxEnt>(FileAuxSym));
+}
+
+static void
+dumpStatAuxSym(std::vector<std::unique_ptr<XCOFFYAML::AuxSymbolEnt>> &AuxEntTbl,
+               const object::XCOFFSectAuxEntForStat &AuxEntPtr) {
+  XCOFFYAML::SectAuxEntForStat StatAuxSym;
+  StatAuxSym.SectionLength = AuxEntPtr.SectionLength;
+  StatAuxSym.NumberOfLineNum = AuxEntPtr.NumberOfLineNum;
+  StatAuxSym.NumberOfRelocEnt = AuxEntPtr.NumberOfRelocEnt;
+  AuxEntTbl.push_back(
----------------
EsmeYi wrote:

Thank you for your suggestions! (Sorry, I didn't notice this until after the update).
Although I have no objection about your proposal, actually I'm not sure which implementation is more preferable since current style aligns with other formats like COFF or ELF. And does it make more sense to put the lengthy implementation type code here instead of in the header file?
Hi James @jh7370 , what do you think?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70642