The following swaps the loop splitting pass and the final value
replacement pass to avoid keeping the IV of the earlier loop
live when not necessary. The existing gcc.target/i386/pr87007-5.c
testcase shows that we otherwise fail to elide an empty loop
later. I don't see any good reason why loop splitting would need
final value replacement, all exit values honor the constraints
we place on loop header PHIs automatically.
* passes.def: Exchange loop splitting and final value
replacement passes.
* gcc.target/i386/pr87007-5.c: Make sure we split the loop
and eliminate both in the end.