[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't trim formula that uses a subset of required registers

[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't trim formula that uses a subset of required registers

Consider this use from the new testcase:

  LSR Use: Kind=ICmpZero, Offsets={0}, widest fixup type: i32
    reg({1000,+,-1}<nw><%for.body>)
    -3003 + reg({3,+,3}<nw><%for.body>)
    -1001 + reg({1,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>)
    -1000 + reg({0,+,1}<nw><%for.body>)
    -3000 + reg({0,+,3}<nuw><%for.body>)
    reg({-1000,+,1}<nw><%for.body>)
    reg({-3000,+,3}<nsw><%for.body>)

This is the last use we consider for a solution in SolveRecurse, so CurRegs is
a large set.  (CurRegs is the set of registers that are needed by the
previously visited uses in the in-progress solution.)

ReqRegs is {
  {3,+,3}<nw><%for.body>,
  {1,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
}

This is the intersection of the regs used by any of the formulas for the
current use and CurRegs.

Now, the code requires a formula to contain *all* these regs (the comment is
simply wrong), otherwise the formula is immediately disqualified.  Obviously,
no formula for this use contains two regs so they will all get disqualified.

The fix modifies the check to allow the formula in this case.  The idea is
that neither of these formulae is introducing any new registers which is the
point of this early pruning as far as I understand.

In terms of set arithmetic, we now allow formulas whose used regs are a subset
of the required regs not just the other way around.

There are few more loops in the test-suite that are now successfully LSRed.  I
have benchmarked those and found very minimal change.

Fixes <rdar://problem/13965777>

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207271 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8