as proposed in [MR](https://git.frama-c.com/frama-c/frama-c/-/merge_requests/2817#note_95099)

Just using `check` as a prefix to various keywords would lead to too many
ambiguities in the parser (notably in contracts, where you can have an empty
requires list followed by `check ensures ...` or a `check requires ...`. With
a lookahead of 1, it's difficult for the parser see which rule should apply.
Hence, the lexer will perform itself the lookahead and emit a proper token
(`CHECK_ENSURES` or `CHECK_REQUIRES` respectively).

this is a generalization of `check` vs. `assert` to other annotations. Not all
annotations are relevant though. Currently, there are more annotation nodes in
the AST that can have a flag `{ tp_only_check }` than was deemed useful in
pub/frama-c#25, but said flag can in fact safely be ignored. Moreover, this
commit only add this flag in the AST, but provides no further mean to set it to
true except for the original `check` keyword (i.e. on `AAssert`). The parser
and the behavior of the plugins that can handle the flag will be updated in
subsequent commits

[Doc] add mention to SARIF output in userman

See merge request frama-c/frama-c!2822

Fixes stack overflow in `Status_by_call.replacement_visitor`

Closes #890

See merge request frama-c/frama-c!2752

typo in command given in the manual

See merge request frama-c/frama-c!2820

Fix/tests/python3

See merge request frama-c/frama-c!2779

Mark block from inline functions as inlined

See merge request frama-c/frama-c!2812

Fix/andre/various minor fixes

See merge request frama-c/frama-c!2797

[Kernel] refactor file.ml and add option -print-cpp-commands

See merge request frama-c/frama-c!2792