[llvm] [VPlan] Simplify (X && Y) || (X && !Y) -> X. (PR #89386)

[via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -192,6 +191,47 @@ using AllBinaryRecipe_match =
     BinaryRecipe_match<Op0_t, Op1_t, Opcode, VPWidenRecipe, VPReplicateRecipe,
                        VPWidenCastRecipe, VPInstruction>;
 
+template <typename Op0_t, typename Op1_t, unsigned Opcode, bool Commutable,
+          typename... RecipeTys>
+struct LogicalRecipe_match {
+  Op0_t LHS;
+  Op1_t RHS;
+
+  LogicalRecipe_match(Op0_t LHS, Op1_t RHS) : LHS(LHS), RHS(RHS) {}
+
+  bool match(const VPValue *V) {
+    auto *DefR = V->getDefiningRecipe();
+    return DefR && match(DefR);
+  }
+
+  bool match(const VPSingleDefRecipe *R) {
+    return match(static_cast<const VPRecipeBase *>(R));
+  }
+
+  bool match(const VPRecipeBase *R) {
+    if (!detail::MatchRecipeAndOpcode<Opcode, RecipeTys...>::match(R)) {
+      if (!detail::MatchRecipeAndOpcode<Instruction::Select,
+                                        RecipeTys...>::match(R))
+        return false;
+      if (Opcode == Instruction::And) {
+        if (!m_False().match(R->getOperand(2)))
----------------
ayalz wrote:

Would doing so earlier simplify this "Simplify (X && Y) || (X && !Y) -> X" patch? Regarding handling input, is that needed or expected, given that this tries to simplify mask computations that are generated earlier by LV. This is also consistent with using and matching Not (rather than its xor-with-true form), introduced before VPlan represented constants.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89386