[ValueTracking] recognize sub X, (X -nuw Y) as not overflowing

This extends a similar pattern from D125500 and D127754.
If we know that operand 1 (RHS) of a subtract is itself a
non-overflowing subtract from operand 0 (LHS), then the
final/outer subtract is also non-overflowing:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Bqan8v

InstCombine uses this analysis to trigger a narrowing
optimization, so that is what the first changed test shows.

The last test models a motivating case from issue #48013.
In that example, we determine 'nuw' on the first sub from
the urem, then we determine that the 2nd sub can be narrowed,
and that leads to eliminating both subtracts.

here are still several missing subtract narrowing optimizations
demonstrated in the tests above the diffs shown here - those
should be handled in InstCombine with another set of patches.