ifcvt: Improve noce_try_store_flag_mask [PR105314]

ifcvt: Improve noce_try_store_flag_mask [PR105314]

The following testcase regressed on riscv due to the splitting of critical
edges in the sink pass, similarly to x86_64 compared to GCC 11 we now swap
the edges, whether true or false edge goes to an empty forwarded bb.
From GIMPLE POV, those 2 forms are equivalent, but as can be seen here, for
some ifcvt opts it matters one way or another.

On this testcase, noce_try_store_flag_mask used to trigger and transformed
if (pseudo2) pseudo1 = 0;
into
pseudo1 &= -(pseudo2 == 0);
But with the swapped edges ifcvt actually sees
if (!pseudo2) pseudo3 = pseudo1; else pseudo3 = 0;
and noce_try_store_flag_mask punts.  IMHO there is no reason why it
should punt those, it is equivalent to
pseudo3 = pseudo1 & -(pseudo2 == 0);
and especially if the target has 3 operand AND, it shouldn't be any more
costly (and even with 2 operand AND, it might very well happen that RA
can make it happen without any extra moves).

Initially I've just removed the rtx_equal_p calls from the conditions
and didn't add anything there, but that broke aarch64 bootstrap and
regressed some testcases on x86_64, where if_info->a or if_info->b could be
some larger expression that we can't force into a register.
Furthermore, the case where both if_info->a and if_info->b are constants is
better handled by other ifcvt optimizations like noce_try_store_flag
or noce_try_inverse_constants or noce_try_store_flag_constants.
So, I've restricted it to just a REG (perhaps SUBREG of REG might be ok too)
next to what has been handled previously.

2022-04-26  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR rtl-optimization/105314
	* ifcvt.cc (noce_try_store_flag_mask): Don't require that the non-zero
	operand is equal to if_info->x, instead use the non-zero operand
	as one of the operands of AND with if_info->x as target.

	* gcc.target/riscv/pr105314.c: New test.