LoopVectorizationCostModel::needsExtract should recognise instructions
that have been widened by scalarizing as scalar instructions, and thus
not needing an extract when used by later scalarized instructions.

This fixes an incorrect cost calculation in computePredInstDiscount,
where we are adding a scalarization overhead cost when we shouldn't,
though I haven't come up with a test case where it makes a difference.
It will make a difference when the cost model switches to using the cost
kind TCK_CodeSize for optsize, as not doing this causes the test
LoopVectorize/X86/small-size.ll to get worse.

printFlags() already takes care of printing a single space if there are
no flags. Remove the extra space when printing a recipe without flags.

This was originally done to reduce the diff for the change. Remove it
and update the remaining tests. NFC modulo reordering of incoming
values.

Clean up after https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114292.

Make tests independent of VPlan value numbers.

This makes sure that an early return during this fold doesn't end
up skipping later gep folds.

If the gep is nusw (usually via inbounds) and the offset is
non-negative, we can infer nuw.

Proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ihztLy

If IVUpdateMayOverflow is false, we proved that the induction increment
cannot overflow in the vector loop. This allows setting NUW in some
cases when folding the tail.

PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111758

Don't match the entire floating point debug output since it's prone to
rounding errors depending upon the target.

Currently it's very difficult to improve the cost model for tail-folded
loops because as soon as you add a VPInstruction::computeCost function
that adds the costs of instructions such as
VPInstruction::ActiveLaneMask
and VPInstruction::ExplicitVectorLength the assert in
LoopVectorizationPlanner::computeBestVF fails for some tests. This is
because the VF chosen by the legacy cost model doesn't match the vplan
cost model. See PR #90191. This assert is currently making it difficult
to improve the cost model.

Hopefully we will be in a position to remove the assert soon, however
in order to do that we have to fix up a whole bunch of tests that rely
upon the legacy cost model output. I've tried my best to update
these tests to use vplan output instead.

There is still work needed for the VF=1 case because the vplan cost
model is not printed out in this case. I've not attempted to fix those
in this patch.