[DAGCombiner] use UADDO to optimize saturated unsigned add

[DAGCombiner] use UADDO to optimize saturated unsigned add

This is a preliminary step towards solving PR14613:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613

If we have an 'add' instruction that sets flags, we can use that to eliminate an
explicit compare instruction or some other instruction (cmn) that sets flags for
use in the later select.

As shown in the unchanged tests that use 'icmp ugt %x, %a', we're effectively
reversing an IR icmp canonicalization that replaces a variable operand with a
constant:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/V1Q

But we're not using 'uaddo' in those cases via DAG transforms. This happens in
CGP after D8889 without checking target lowering to see if the op is supported.
So AArch already shows 'uaddo' codegen for the i8/i16/i32/i64 test variants with
"using_cmp_sum" in the title. That's the pattern that CGP matches as an unsigned
saturated add and converts to uaddo without checking target capabilities.

This patch is gated by isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::UADDO, VT), so we see only
see AArch diffs for i32/i64 in the tests with "using_cmp_notval" in the title
(unlike x86 which sees improvements for all sizes because all sizes are 'custom').
But the AArch code (like x86) looks better when translated to 'uaddo' in all cases.
So someone that is involved with AArch may want to set i8/i16 to 'custom' for UADDO,
so this patch will fire on those tests.

Another possibility given the existing behavior: we could remove the legal-or-custom
check altogether because we're assuming that a UADDO sequence is canonical/optimal
before we ever reach here. But that seems like a bug to me. If the target doesn't
have an add-with-flags op, then it's not likely that we'll get optimal DAG combining
using a UADDO node. This is similar justification for why we don't canonicalize IR to
the overflow math intrinsic sibling (llvm.uadd.with.overflow) for UADDO in the first
place.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51929

llvm-svn: 342886