[LoopInterchange] Add test for floating point math flags (llvm#149090)

Adding a test where both `ninf` and `reassoc` flags are present on the
instruction. We don't know yet if it is legal to interchange. Prima
facie, it does not look like it should be legal but more analysis is
needed.

Author: madhur13490

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/reductions-non-wrapped-operations.ll

@@ -411,6 +411,44 @@ exit:
   ret void
 }
 
+; FIXME: Is it really legal to interchange the loops when
+; both reassoc and ninf are set?
+; Check that the interchange is legal if the floating-point addition is marked
+; as reassoc.
+;
+; CHECK:      --- !Pass
+; CHECK-NEXT: Pass:            loop-interchange
+; CHECK-NEXT: Name:            Interchanged
+; CHECK-NEXT: Function:        reduction_reassoc_ninf_fadd
+define void @reduction_reassoc_ninf_fadd(ptr %A) {
+entry:
+  br label %for.i.header
+
+for.i.header:
+  %i = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.inc, %for.i.latch ]
+  %sum.i = phi float [ 0.0, %entry ], [ %sum.i.lcssa, %for.i.latch ]
+  br label %for.j
+
+for.j:
+  %j = phi i32 [ 0, %for.i.header ], [ %j.inc, %for.j ]
+  %sum.j = phi float [ %sum.i, %for.i.header ], [ %sum.j.next, %for.j ]
+  %idx = getelementptr inbounds [2 x [2 x i32]], ptr %A, i32 0, i32 %j, i32 %i
+  %a = load float, ptr %idx, align 4
+  %sum.j.next = fadd reassoc ninf float %sum.j, %a
+  %j.inc = add i32 %j, 1
+  %cmp.j = icmp slt i32 %j.inc, 2
+  br i1 %cmp.j, label %for.j, label %for.i.latch
+
+for.i.latch:
+  %sum.i.lcssa = phi float [ %sum.j.next, %for.j ]
+  %i.inc = add i32 %i, 1
+  %cmp.i = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, 2
+  br i1 %cmp.i, label %for.i.header, label %exit
+
+exit:
+  ret void
+}
+
 ; Check that the loops aren't exchanged if there is a reduction of
 ; non-reassociative floating-point multiplication.
 ;