[Clang Diagnostics] When constexpr evaluation fails, the call stack shows the final value of function arguments, even if they are mutated

[MitalAshok]

Consider https://godbolt.org/z/ao786daav:

constexpr int f(int x) {
    ++x;
    return x / x;
}

constexpr int i = -1;
static_assert(f(i) == 1);

It has this diagnostic:

<source>:7:15: error: static assertion expression is not an integral constant expression
    7 | static_assert(f(i) == 1);
      |               ^~~~~~~~~
<source>:3:14: note: division by zero
    3 |     return x / x;
      |              ^ ~
<source>:7:15: note: in call to 'f(0)'
    7 | static_assert(f(i) == 1);
      |               ^~~~

Even though it was in a call to f(0). The diagnostic makes it seem like i == 0. This does not happen with the experimental bytecode interpreter (https://godbolt.org/z/G1exhxfKf), which has in call to 'f(-1)'.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-clang-frontend

Author: Mital Ashok (MitalAshok)

Consider <https://godbolt.org/z/ao786daav>: ```c++ constexpr int f(int x) { ++x; return x / x; } constexpr int i = -1; static_assert(f(i) == 1); ``` It has this diagnostic: ``` <source>:7:15: error: static assertion expression is not an integral constant expression 7 | static_assert(f(i) == 1); | ^~~~~~~~~ <source>:3:14: note: division by zero 3 | return x / x; | ^ ~ <source>:7:15: note: in call to 'f(0)' 7 | static_assert(f(i) == 1); | ^~~~ ``` Even though it was in a call to `f(0)`. The diagnostic makes it seem like `i == 0`. This does not happen with the experimental bytecode interpreter (<https://godbolt.org/z/G1exhxfKf>), which has `in call to 'f(-1)'`.