Generalize transforms for #3153

[MaxGraey]

It's more general (additional) version of #3153 which also handle negative constant dividers:
(int32)x % -4 == 0 --> (x & 3) == 0
x % -C_pot == 0 --> (x & (abs(C_pot) - 1)) == 0

and special two-complement values as well:
(int32)x % 0x80000000 == 0 --> (x & 0x7fffffff) == 0
(int64)x % 0x8000000000000000 == 0 --> (x & 0x7fffffffffffffff) == 0
as separete rules:
(int32)x % 0x80000000 --> x & 0x7fffffff
(int64)x % 0x8000000000000000 --> x & 0x7fffffffffffffff

The previous pr didn't use these possibilities.

cc @kripken @tlively

[MaxGraey]

Quick fuzzed:

Invocations so far:
   FuzzExec: 1771
   CompareVMs: 534
   CheckDeterminism: 173
   Wasm2JS: 419
   Asyncify: 466

ITERATION: 2115

Will fuzz it more carefully tomorrow.

[MaxGraey]

refuzzed

[tlively]

Can you remind me why it's not enough to just do x % -C_pot --> x & (abs(C_pot) - 1)? Why does the comparison with zero need to be part of the pattern?

[MaxGraey]

Can you remind me why it's not enough to just do x % -C_pot --> x & (abs(C_pot) - 1)? Why does the comparison with zero need to be part of the pattern?

(signed)x % -C_pot without other constrains like comparison with zero is a bit tricky due to two complement (asymmetric) nature of integers, so for negative values we should follow path which care about overflows. That's for example how this look on VMs/LLVM:

https://godbolt.org/z/E5b3rx

[tlively]

LGTM with that one last comment addressed :)

[tlively]

Awesome, thanks :)