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.
Functions using different constant expressions were incorrectly
merged, because a lot of state was missing from the comparison,
including the opcode, the comparison predicate, the GEP element
type, as well as the inbounds, inrange and nowrap poison flags.
