tree f8733333872fe588a6f1c836741a0c2ce94019c0
parent 8c26472322d2157bef5ce295ba3dbc8e0bf6f187
author Nikita Popov <npopov@redhat.com> 1710928785 +0100
committer Copybara-Service <copybara-worker@google.com> 1710929380 -0700

[IR] Change representation of getelementptr inrange (#84341)

As part of the migration to ptradd
(https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-replacing-getelementptr-with-ptradd/68699),
we need to change the representation of the `inrange` attribute, which
is used for vtable splitting.

Currently, inrange is specified as follows:

```
getelementptr inbounds ({ [4 x ptr], [4 x ptr] }, ptr @vt, i64 0, inrange i32 1, i64 2)
```

The `inrange` is placed on a GEP index, and all accesses must be "in
range" of that index. The new representation is as follows:

```
getelementptr inbounds inrange(-16, 16) ({ [4 x ptr], [4 x ptr] }, ptr @vt, i64 0, i32 1, i64 2)
```

This specifies which offsets are "in range" of the GEP result. The new
representation will continue working when canonicalizing to ptradd
representation:

```
getelementptr inbounds inrange(-16, 16) (i8, ptr @vt, i64 48)
```

The inrange offsets are relative to the return value of the GEP. An
alternative design could make them relative to the source pointer
instead. The result-relative format was chosen on the off-chance that we
want to extend support to non-constant GEPs in the future, in which case
this variant is more expressive.

This implementation "upgrades" the old inrange representation in bitcode
by simply dropping it. This is a very niche feature, and I don't think
trying to upgrade it is worthwhile. Let me know if you disagree.

GitOrigin-RevId: 0f46e31cfbf415fcd3d3ce121bef94e92c6ccfc8