[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [clang] Introduce diagnostics suppression mappings (PR #112517)

[kadir çetinkaya via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -332,19 +334,22 @@ static void SetupSerializedDiagnostics(DiagnosticOptions *DiagOpts,
 
 void CompilerInstance::createDiagnostics(DiagnosticConsumer *Client,
                                          bool ShouldOwnClient) {
-  Diagnostics = createDiagnostics(&getDiagnosticOpts(), Client,
-                                  ShouldOwnClient, &getCodeGenOpts());
+  Diagnostics = createDiagnostics(
+      &getDiagnosticOpts(), Client, ShouldOwnClient, &getCodeGenOpts(),
+      FileMgr ? FileMgr->getVirtualFileSystemPtr() : nullptr);
 }
 
-IntrusiveRefCntPtr<DiagnosticsEngine>
-CompilerInstance::createDiagnostics(DiagnosticOptions *Opts,
-                                    DiagnosticConsumer *Client,
-                                    bool ShouldOwnClient,
-                                    const CodeGenOptions *CodeGenOpts) {
+IntrusiveRefCntPtr<DiagnosticsEngine> CompilerInstance::createDiagnostics(
+    DiagnosticOptions *Opts, DiagnosticConsumer *Client, bool ShouldOwnClient,
+    const CodeGenOptions *CodeGenOpts,
+    llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<llvm::vfs::FileSystem> VFS) {
   IntrusiveRefCntPtr<DiagnosticIDs> DiagID(new DiagnosticIDs());
   IntrusiveRefCntPtr<DiagnosticsEngine>
       Diags(new DiagnosticsEngine(DiagID, Opts));
 
+  if (!VFS)
----------------
kadircet wrote:

yes, that's a real concern. I am planning to address them in a followup as mentioned in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/112518. as this patch was getting big, and changes here shouldn't upset any clients until they start using suppression mappings.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112517