Reland [SimplifyCFG] performBranchToCommonDestFolding(): form block-closed SSA...

Reland [SimplifyCFG] performBranchToCommonDestFolding(): form block-closed SSA form before cloning instructions (PR51125)

... with test change this time.

LLVM IR SSA form is "implicit" in `@pr51125`. While is a valid LLVM IR,
and does not require any PHI nodes, that completely breaks the further logic
in `CloneInstructionsIntoPredecessorBlockAndUpdateSSAUses()`
that updates the live-out uses of the bonus instructions.

What i believe we need to do, is to first make the SSA form explicit,
by inserting tautological PHI nodes, and rewriting the offending uses.

```
$ /builddirs/llvm-project/build-Clang12/bin/opt -load /repositories/alive2/build-Clang-release/tv/tv.so -load-pass-plugin /repositories/alive2/build-Clang-release/tv/tv.so -tv -simplifycfg -simplifycfg-require-and-preserve-domtree=1 -bonus-inst-threshold=10 -tv -o /dev/null /tmp/test.ll

----------------------------------------
@global_pr51125 = global 4 bytes, align 4

define i32 @pr51125() {
%entry:
  br label %L

%L:
  %ld = load i32, * @global_pr51125, align 4
  %iszero = icmp eq i32 %ld, 0
  br i1 %iszero, label %exit, label %L2

%L2:
  store i32 4294967295, * @global_pr51125, align 4
  %cmp = icmp eq i32 %ld, 4294967295
  br i1 %cmp, label %L, label %exit

%exit:
  %r = phi i32 [ %ld, %L2 ], [ %ld, %L ]
  ret i32 %r
}
=>
@global_pr51125 = global 4 bytes, align 4

define i32 @pr51125() {
%entry:
  %ld.old = load i32, * @global_pr51125, align 4
  %iszero.old = icmp eq i32 %ld.old, 0
  br i1 %iszero.old, label %exit, label %L2

%L2:
  %ld2 = phi i32 [ %ld.old, %entry ], [ %ld, %L2 ]
  store i32 4294967295, * @global_pr51125, align 4
  %cmp = icmp ne i32 %ld2, 4294967295
  %ld = load i32, * @global_pr51125, align 4
  %iszero = icmp eq i32 %ld, 0
  %or.cond = select i1 %cmp, i1 1, i1 %iszero
  br i1 %or.cond, label %exit, label %L2

%exit:
  %ld1 = phi i32 [ poison, %L2 ], [ %ld.old, %entry ]
  %r = phi i32 [ %ld2, %L2 ], [ %ld.old, %entry ]
  ret i32 %r
}
Transformation seems to be correct!

```

Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51125

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106317