x86 register/flag patch appled in pydb branch of ddd

In the pydb branch of ddd, I've applied Zarko Zivanov's patches to
facilitate Intel register and flag display.

The changes are a little bit different than the patches provided. 

First, things that were not related to Intel registers and flags were
not applied, and in particular X resource changes in Ddd.in.m4, such
as cutCopyPasteBindings, groupIconify, displayLineNumbers, etc.

While I do appreciate the feedback from user experience with regards
to what better defaults should be, I don't feel qualified or
authoritative to make this a global change for everyone.

Here, I think Zarko should just make a diff to this file and apply it
to Ddd.in.m4 (or the installed Ddd) whenever he updates his
release. (And given that the patch was a verson out of date this in
fact might not be all that often.)

A change in Ddd.in.m4 was also made to add to the "Data window",
command buttons which show the values of various Intel registers and
flags. The problem with this is that assumes that one is always
working on an Intel x86-like CPU, and also that one is always
interested in assembly debugging. That may be true for the students in
Zarko's classes, but I doubt it is true for the ddd community in
general. It would be nice if ddd had a context-sensitive way to add
data buttons. At present though, I don't think it does.

In Zarko's patch were two themes called flags.xsl and regs.xsl, I've
merged them into one file called x86.xsl (or one theme, called x86). I
doubt that one will want one to use one and not the other. What this
theme does is look for specific expressions like "($eflags & 1) != 0"
and replaces the title of the display box with something easier to
understand, like "carry" (bit). A small change I've made is to make
these tests more precise. For example, whereas before the test on the
title was "1) != 0", it now is "($eflags & 1) != 0".

In theory there could be themes for other CPU architectures, but in
practice I wonder how many CPU architectures there are out there still
in use and that people debug via ddd that give names to a half or a
quarter of a register (e.g. ah, cx, etc.). It is however possible that
folks may want to add expressions as is done in x86.vsl for flag bits
(carry, overflow). 

There was a patch in ddd's examine command, that wouldn't compile on
older C compilers because there was a declaration after a statement in
block. Also the code was specific (I think) to Intel x86 assembly
where %reg gets turned into $reg, e.g %ax -> $ax.  I've now made this
code conditional on using gdb built for x86 architectures.

In the process, I've added an internal enumeration variable which
indicates type of CPU that is in effect. However, right now it's only
set to Intel, or unknown. If there are other customizations for other
kinds of CPUs the additional enumeration values can be added and
tested for.

Note: I added this as a public variable rather than a private variable
with two set/get methods. is_windriver_cpu uses the latter
approach. Personally, I find the extra layer of "abstraction" with the
private variable not all that helpful. In fact, it just makes ddd
harder to debug and doesn't really improve clarity all that much either:
gdb->cpu() vs. gdb->cpu.

What remains to be done is to update the documentation for how to use
this. It took me a long time to figure out how to use this.