[Codegen][SelectionDAG] X u% C == 0 fold: non-splat vector improvements
Summary:
Four things here:
1. Generalize the fold to handle non-splat divisors. Reasonably trivial.
2. Unban power-of-two divisors. I don't see any reason why they should
be illegal.
* There is no ban in Hacker's Delight
* I think the ban came from the same bug that caused the miscompile
in the base patch - in `floor((2^W - 1) / D)` we were dividing by
`D0` instead of `D`, and we **were** ensuring that `D0` is not `1`,
which made sense.
3. Unban `1` divisors. I no longer believe Hacker's Delight actually says
that the fold is invalid for `D = 0`. Further considerations:
* We know that
* `(X u% 1) == 0` can be constant-folded to `1`,
* `(X u% 1) != 0` can be constant-folded to `0`,
* Also, we know that
* `X u<= -1` can be constant-folded to `1`,
* `X u> -1` can be constant-folded to `0`,
* https://godbolt.org/z/7jnZJX https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oF6p
* We know will end up with the following:
`(setule/setugt (rotr (mul N, P), K), Q)`
* Therefore, for given new DAG nodes and comparison predicates
(`ule`/`ugt`), we will still produce the correct answer if:
`Q` is a all-ones constant; and both `P` and `K` are *anything*
other than `undef`.
* The fold will indeed produce `Q = all-ones`.
4. Try to re-splat the `P` and `K` vectors - we don't care about
their values for the lanes where divisor was `1`.
Reviewers: RKSimon, hermord, craig.topper, spatel, xbolva00
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, dexonsmith, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63963
llvm-svn: 366637