Summary:
This is a preparatory cleanup before i add more
of this fold to deal with comparisons with non-zero.
In essence, the current lowering is:
```
Name: (X % C1) == 0 -> X * C3 <= C4
Pre: (C1 u>> countTrailingZeros(C1)) * C3 == 1
%zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; trick alive into making C3 avaliable in precondition
%o0 = urem i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp eq i8 %o0, 0
=>
%zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; and silence it from complaining about said reg
%C4 = -1 /u C1
%n0 = mul i8 %x, C3
%n1 = lshr i8 %n0, countTrailingZeros(C1) ; rotate right
%n2 = shl i8 %n0, ((8-countTrailingZeros(C1)) %u 8) ; rotate right
%n3 = or i8 %n1, %n2 ; rotate right
%r = icmp ule i8 %n3, %C4
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oqd
It kinda just works, really no weird edge-cases.
But it isn't all that great for when comparing with non-zero.
In particular, given `(X % C1) == C2`, there will be problems
in the always-false tautological case where `C2 u>= C1`:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pH3
That case is tautological, always-false:
```
Name: (X % Y) u>= Y
%o0 = urem i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp uge i8 %o0, %y
=>
%r = false
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ofu
While we can't/shouldn't get such tautological case normally,
we do deal with non-splat vectors, so unless we want to give up
in this case, we need to fixup/short-circuit such lanes.
There are two lowering variants:
1. We can blend between whatever computed result and the correct tautological result
```
Name: (X % C1) == C2 -> X * C3 <= C4 || false
Pre: (C2 == 0 || C1 u<= C2) && (C1 u>> countTrailingZeros(C1)) * C3 == 1
%zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; trick alive into making C3 avaliable in precondition
%o0 = urem i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp eq i8 %o0, C2
=>
%zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; and silence it from complaining about said reg
%C4 = -1 /u C1
%n0 = mul i8 %x, C3
%n1 = lshr i8 %n0, countTrailingZeros(C1) ; rotate right
%n2 = shl i8 %n0, ((8-countTrailingZeros(C1)) %u 8) ; rotate right
%n3 = or i8 %n1, %n2 ; rotate right
%is_tautologically_false = icmp ule i8 C1, C2
%res = icmp ule i8 %n3, %C4
%r = select i1 %is_tautologically_false, i1 0, i1 %res
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/PjT5https://rise4fun.com/Alive/1KV
2. We can invert the comparison result
```
Name: (X % C1) == C2 -> X * C3 <= C4 || false
Pre: (C2 == 0 || C1 u<= C2) && (C1 u>> countTrailingZeros(C1)) * C3 == 1
%zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; trick alive into making C3 avaliable in precondition
%o0 = urem i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp eq i8 %o0, C2
=>
%zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; and silence it from complaining about said reg
%C4 = -1 /u C1
%n0 = mul i8 %x, C3
%n1 = lshr i8 %n0, countTrailingZeros(C1) ; rotate right
%n2 = shl i8 %n0, ((8-countTrailingZeros(C1)) %u 8) ; rotate right
%n3 = or i8 %n1, %n2 ; rotate right
%is_tautologically_false = icmp ule i8 C1, C2
%C4_fixed = select i1 %is_tautologically_false, i8 -1, i8 %C4
%res = icmp ule i8 %n3, %C4_fixed
%r = xor i1 %res, %is_tautologically_false
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/2xChttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/jpb5
3. We can expand into `and`/`or`:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WGnhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/lcb5
Blend-one is likely better since we avoid having to load the
replacement from constant pool. `xor` is second best since
it's still pretty general. I'm not adding `and`/`or` variants.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: nick, hiraditya, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70051
Roman Lebedev