Considering that "or disjoint" is the canonical for certain add
operations, then I think we want to support such "add like" operations
when doing ADD+GEP->GEP+GEP rewrites to make things more consistent.

Problem was found when improving ValueTracking, which turned an ADD into
OR, and then suddenly optimizations got worse due to these rewrites no
longer triggering.

This PR removes the old `nocapture` attribute, replacing it with the new
`captures` attribute introduced in #116990. This change is
intended to be essentially NFC, replacing existing uses of `nocapture`
with `captures(none)` without adding any new analysis capabilities.
Making use of non-`none` values is left for a followup.

Some notes:
* `nocapture` will be upgraded to `captures(none)` by the bitcode
   reader.
* `nocapture` will also be upgraded by the textual IR reader. This is to
   make it easier to use old IR files and somewhat reduce the test churn in
   this PR.
* Helper APIs like `doesNotCapture()` will check for `captures(none)`.
* MLIR import will convert `captures(none)` into an `llvm.nocapture`
   attribute. The representation in the LLVM IR dialect should be updated
   separately.

Use createDerivedIV to compute IV end values directly in VPlan, instead
of creating them up-front.

This allows updating IV users outside the loop as follow-up.

Depends on https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110004 and
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109975.

PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112145

Analogous to 2c7786e94a1058bd4f96794a1d4f70dcb86e5cc5, cleanup a case
where the vectorizer is emitting a non-canonical identity value given
the available flags. We use largest/smallest value during ISEL, and VP
expansion, but not during vectorization.

Since the fmin/fmax/fminimum/fmaximum intrinsics don't require a start
value, this difference is only visible when masking of inactive lanes is
required.

Primary motivation of this change is simply to remove a difference
between version of code which reason about the identity value of a
reduction so I can kill all but one off.

In review, it was pointed out that this is actually a functional fix as well. 
The old code used inf on a noinf reduction instruction - whose
result is poison!  That wasn't the intent of the code.  

This is a follow up to 924907bc6, and is mostly motivated by consistency
but does include one additional optimization. In general, we prefer 0.0
over -0.0 as the identity value for an fadd. We use that value in
several places, but don't in others. So, let's be consistent and use the
same identity (when nsz allows) everywhere.

This creates a bunch of test churn, but due to 924907bc6, most of that
churn doesn't actually indicate a change in codegen. The exception is
that this change enables the use of 0.0 for nsz, but *not* reasoc, fadd
reductions. Or said differently, it allows the neutral value of an
ordered fadd reduction to be 0.0.

By choosing an initial value whose mask is only used by the blend we can
remove the need for the mask entirely.

The idea behind this canonicalization is that it allows us to handle less
patterns, because we know that some will be canonicalized away. This is
indeed very useful to e.g. know that constants are always on the right.

However, this is only useful if the canonicalization is actually
reliable. This is the case for constants, but not for arguments: Moving
these to the right makes it look like the "more complex" expression is
guaranteed to be on the left, but this is not actually the case in
practice. It fails as soon as you replace the argument with another
instruction.

The end result is that it looks like things correctly work in tests,
while they actually don't. We use the "thwart complexity-based
canonicalization" trick to handle this in tests, but it's often a
challenge for new contributors to get this right, and based on the
regressions this PR originally exposed, we clearly don't get this right
in many cases.

For this reason, I think that it's better to remove this complexity
canonicalization. It will make it much easier to write tests for
commuted cases and make sure that they are handled.

This patch moves branch condition creation to enter the scalar epilogue
loop to VPlan. Modeling the branch in the middle block also requires
modeling the successor blocks. This is done using the recently
introduced VPIRBasicBlock.

Note that the middle.block is still created as part of the skeleton and
then patched in during VPlan execution. Unfortunately the skeleton needs
to create the middle.block early on, as it is also used for induction
resume value creation and is also needed to properly update the
dominator tree during skeleton creation.

After this patch lands, I plan to move induction resume value and phi
node creation in the scalar preheader to VPlan. Once that is done, we
should be able to create the middle.block in VPlan directly.

This is a re-worked version based on the earlier
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150398 and the main change is the use of
VPIRBasicBlock.

Depends on https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92525

PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92651

Use VPIRBasicBlock to wrap the middle block and implement patching up
branches in predecessors in VPIRBasicBlock::execute. The IR middle block
is only created after skeleton creation. Initially a regular
VPBasicBlock is created, which will later be replaced by a
VPIRBasicBlock once the middle IR basic block has been created.

Note that this slightly changes the order of instructions created in the
middle block; code generated by recipe execution in the middle block
will now be inserted before the terminator (and in between the compare
to used by the terminator). The original order will be restored in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92651.


PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95816