[llvm] [DebugInfo] Handle additional types of stores in assignment tracking (PR #129070)

[Orlando Cazalet-Hyams via llvm-commits]

OCHyams wrote:

I don't want to block this, since it fixes an assertion. But I don't think my question was addressed / answered:

> More broadly, it's unfortunate to remove coverage for the entire variable. Part of me wonders whether it's better to go the other way, and state it's a def for the whole variable. This is obviously liable to introduce incorrect locations, but if we compare it to dbg.declare semantics (which this stuff sort-of replaces) I don't think it'd be a regression there. I'm not sure how convinced I am by my own argument; I'm not a massive fan of either option, but we do need to do something. cc @jmorse in case he wants to chime in.

I'm leaning slightly more that way now, but it's better to do what you've got here already than assert. 

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129070