It is impossible for (x & INT_MAX) == 0 && x == INT_MAX to ever be true.
While this sort of reasoning should normally live in InstSimplify,
the machinery that derives this result is not trivial to split out.
llvm-svn: 222230
"(icmp op i8 A, B)" is equivalent to "(icmp op i8 (A & 0xff), B)" as a
degenerate case. Allowing this as a "masked" comparison when analysing "(icmp)
&/| (icmp)" allows us to combine them in more cases.
rdar://problem/7625728
llvm-svn: 189931
Even in cases which aren't universally optimisable like "(A & B) != 0 && (A &
C) != 0", the masks can make one of the comparisons completely redundant. In
this case, since we've gone to the effort of spotting masked comparisons we
should combine them.
rdar://problem/7625728
llvm-svn: 189930
David Majnemer