Return UGT rather than NE for icmp @g, null, which is slightly
stronger. This is consistent with what we do for more complex
folds. It is somewhat silly that @g ugt null does not get folded
while (gep @g) ugt null does.
While @g ugt null is always true (ignoring weak symbols),
@g sgt null is not necessarily the case -- that would imply that
it is forbidden to place globals in the high half of the address
space.
I noticed that we were not folding expressions like this:
icmp ult (constexpr), null
in https://llvm.org/PR49355, so we end up with extremely large
icmp instructions as the constant expressions pile up on each other.
There is no potential to mis-fold an unsigned boundary condition
with a zero/null, so this is just falling through a crack in the
pattern matching.
The more general case of comparisons of non-zero constants and
constexpr are more tricky and may require the datalayout to know
how to cast to different types, etc. Negative tests verify that
we are only changing a subset of potential patterns.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98150
Nikita Popov