[llvm] [SelectionDAG] Fix condition used for unsigned subtraction overflow (PR #170896)

[Simon Pilgrim via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -75,23 +75,12 @@ define i32 @combine_uadd_not(i32 %a0, i32 %a1) {
 define <4 x i32> @combine_vec_uadd_not(<4 x i32> %a0, <4 x i32> %a1) {
 ; SSE-LABEL: combine_vec_uadd_not:
 ; SSE:       # %bb.0:
-; SSE-NEXT:    pxor %xmm2, %xmm2
-; SSE-NEXT:    psubd %xmm0, %xmm2
-; SSE-NEXT:    pmovsxbd {{.*#+}} xmm0 = [1,1,1,1]
-; SSE-NEXT:    pmaxud %xmm2, %xmm0
-; SSE-NEXT:    pcmpeqd %xmm2, %xmm0
-; SSE-NEXT:    blendvps %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm1
 ; SSE-NEXT:    movaps %xmm1, %xmm0
 ; SSE-NEXT:    retq
 ;
 ; AVX-LABEL: combine_vec_uadd_not:
 ; AVX:       # %bb.0:
-; AVX-NEXT:    vpxor %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm2
-; AVX-NEXT:    vpsubd %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
-; AVX-NEXT:    vpbroadcastd {{.*#+}} xmm2 = [1,1,1,1]
-; AVX-NEXT:    vpmaxud %xmm2, %xmm0, %xmm2
-; AVX-NEXT:    vpcmpeqd %xmm2, %xmm0, %xmm2
-; AVX-NEXT:    vblendvps %xmm2, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
+; AVX-NEXT:    vmovaps %xmm1, %xmm0
 ; AVX-NEXT:    retq
----------------
RKSimon wrote:

can you test that in alive please? I'm not convinced that the IR for `uaddo(not(x),1)` should simplify to always overflow 

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/170896