[DivRemPairs] Don't assert that we won't ever get expanded-form rem pairs in different BB's (PR43500)

If we happen to have the same div in two basic blocks,
and in one of those we also happen to have the rem part,
we'd match the div-rem pair, but the wrong ones.
So let's drop overly-ambiguous assert.

Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43500

llvm-svn: 373167

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/DivRemPairs.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/DivRemPairs.cpp
index 4f53874c096..93485350747 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/DivRemPairs.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/DivRemPairs.cpp
@@ -233,8 +233,6 @@ static bool optimizeDivRem(Function &F, const TargetTransformInfo &TTI,
     if (!DivDominates && !DT.dominates(RemInst, DivInst)) {
       // We have matching div-rem pair, but they are in two different blocks,
       // neither of which dominates one another.
-      assert(!RemOriginallyWasInExpandedForm &&
-             "Won't happen for expanded-form rem.");
       // FIXME: We could hoist both ops to the common predecessor block?
       continue;
     }