================
@@ -1427,8 +1429,20 @@ static void AddParamAndFnBasicAttributes(const CallBase
&CB,
ValidExactParamAttrs[ArgNo].getAlignment().valueOrOne())
AL = AL.removeParamAttribute(Context, I, Attribute::Alignment);
+ auto ExistingRange = AL.getParamRange(I);
AL = AL.addParamAttributes(Context, I, ValidExactParamAttrs[ArgNo]);
+ // For range we use the exact intersection.
+ if (ExistingRange.has_value()) {
+ if (auto NewRange = ValidExactParamAttrs[ArgNo].getRange()) {
+ auto CombinedRange =
ExistingRange->exactIntersectWith(*NewRange);
----------------
andjo403 wrote:
What is the reason to poison all values if exactIntersectWith is returning
nullopt? is it not better to remove the range attribute instead of setting an
empty range? or selecting the smallest range as is done by calling
`intersectWith` feels like it is possible to assume that both ranges are valid
only that the intersection gives multiple ranges.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91101
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
