This is the fixed version of
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/163019

…63019)"

This reverts commit 92e5608ffa6ff39ac3707f29418cc9482471f5d9.

This can absorb redundant loads when forming vector load. Can be used to
fix the situation created by VectorCombine. See:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-vectorizeloadinsert-in-the-vectorcombine-pass/88532

Autogenerate checks for merge-vectors.ll and introduce
merge-vectors-complex.ll with mismatched types.
Related PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134436

This is a reland of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138155,
which was reverted due to missed nits.

Reverts llvm/llvm-project#138155

Related PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134436

The tests in this directory all depend on the AMDGPU target being
present so we can let opt infer the data layout.

Reviewed By: arsenm

Pull Request: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137924

Strengthen out-of-bounds guarantees for buffer accesses by disallowing
buffer accesses with alignment lower than natural alignment.

This is needed to specifically address the edge case where an access
starts out-of-bounds and then enters in-bounds, as the hardware would
treat the entire access as being out-of-bounds. This is normally not
needed for most users, but at least one graphics device extension
(VK_EXT_robustness2) has very strict requirements - in-bounds accesses
must return correct value, and out-of-bounds accesses must return zero.

The direct consequence of the patch is that a buffer access at negative
address is not merged by load-store-vectorizer with one at a positive
address, which fixes a CTS test.

Targets that do not care about the new behavior are advised to use the
new target feature relaxed-buffer-oob-mode that maintains the state from
before the patch.

[AMDGPU][NFC] Replace gfx940 and gfx941 with gfx942 in llvm/test

gfx940 and gfx941 are no longer supported. This is one of a series of PRs to remove them from the code base.

This PR uses gfx942 instead of gfx940 and gfx941 in the test RUN-lines (unless there is already a RUN-line for gfx942).

The only notable difference in the test output is that gfx942 does not force the use of sc0 and sc1 on stores while gfx940 and gfx941 do (cf. https://reviews.llvm.org/D149986).

For SWDEV-512631