Test is updated to be valid.

ping. Can I do anything to proceed with this change?

Thank you! I've added two unit tests.

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately till now I failed to create a test showing the benefit from this change in a pass (I tried). I can make one more try.
The problem I'm trying to solve is the following: in downstream pass I have a BitCast instruction which is actually originated from allocation but has a vector type gotten using gep + bitcast from allocation.
I'd like to know the fact that it is an underlying allocation but now utility function just ignore instructions with vector of pointers.

Test, actually can be simplified bit if you do not mind.

LGTM. If no one objects in 1-2 days, feel free to land.

Please take a look.

Before landing.

@sanjoy, are you ok with the last change?

Agreed with Max. Restriction of recursion between isKnownPredicate and simplification of umax is too complex.

Thank you for review guys. I'm ok with your version of commit message.

assert now works.

@sanjoy , please take a look.

Handled comments.

My bad incorrect place to update comment. Will update.
Thanks for noticing.

In D46046#1077768, @javed.absar wrote:

Would removing 'isKnownViaInduction' have any impact of the number of cases 'analyzeable by scev?

LGTM with some comments.

Handled comments.

Sanjoy?

Please take a look.

ping.

By the end of the working day I was able to create one test which shows the advantage of new approach...

Updated patch to handle comments. I still have a trouble to create a unit tests for this change...
I'm trying to figure out some case when the old version did not work but new one does...

SGTM, the same disclaimer :) I'm not a very good at LoopVectorizer :)

For preliminary review, I need to add tests also...