[llvm] [LV] Fix assertion for simplified invariant reduction stores (PR #217306)

[Haolin Guan via llvm-commits]

HaolinGuan7211 wrote:

> I don't think this is the right fix, since we probably don't need an assertion this complicated.
> 
> This probably isn't a good issue to tackle as a first PR, you might want to look at issues with the `good first issue` label instead.
Thanks for the feedback. I used `IntermediateStore` to preserve the check because looking through `Val` is ambiguous when simplification produces a shared constant. I agree this may be too much machinery for a debug-only assertion. Would you prefer removing it entirely, or using a simpler check?
Removing it was my original approach, since the assertion does not seem essential and the existing lookup is unreliable.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/217306