Fixed several correctness issues in SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP

Most issues are on mishandling s/zext.

Fixes:

1. When rebuilding new indices, s/zext should be distributed to
sub-expressions. e.g., sext(a +nsw (b +nsw 5)) = sext(a) + sext(b) + 5 but not
sext(a + b) + 5. This also affects the logic of recursively looking for a
constant offset, we need to include s/zext into the context of the searching.

2. Function find should return the bitwidth of the constant offset instead of
always sign-extending it to i64.

3. Stop shortcutting zext'ed GEP indices. LLVM conceptually sign-extends GEP
indices to pointer-size before computing the address. Therefore, gep base,
zext(a + b) != gep base, a + b

Improvements:

1. Add an optimization for splitting sext(a + b): if a + b is proven
non-negative (e.g., used as an index of an inbound GEP) and one of a, b is
non-negative, sext(a + b) = sext(a) + sext(b)

2. Function Distributable checks whether both sext and zext can be distributed
to operands of a binary operator. This helps us split zext(sext(a + b)) to
zext(sext(a) + zext(sext(b)) when a + b does not signed or unsigned overflow.

Refactoring:

Merge some common logic of handling add/sub/or in find.

Testing:

Add many tests in split-gep.ll and split-gep-and-gvn.ll to verify the changes
we made.