Revert f0c2a5a "[LV] Generalize conditions for sinking instrs for first order recurrences."
It broke Chromium, causing "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" errors.
See https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1022297#c1 for a
If the recurrence PHI node has a single user, we can sink any
instruction without side effects, given that all users are dominated by
the instruction computing the incoming value of the next iteration
('Previous'). We can sink instructions that may cause traps, because
that only causes the trap to occur later, but not on any new paths.
With the relaxed check, we also have to make sure that we do not have a
direct cycle (meaning PHI user == 'Previous), which indicates a
reduction relation, which potentially gets missed by
As follow-ups, we can also sink stores, iff they do not alias with
other instructions we move them across and we could also support sinking
chains of instructions and multiple users of the PHI.
Reviewers: hsaito, dcaballe, Ayal, rengolin
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69228