In bytecodealliance#5031, we removed `bool` types from CLIF, using integers instead for
"truthy" values. This greatly simplified the IR, and was generally an
improvement.

However, because x86's `SETcc` instruction sets only the low 8 bits of a
register, we chose to use `i8` types as the result of `icmp` and `fcmp`,
to avoid the need for a masking operation when materializing the result.

Unfortunately this means that uses of truthy values often now have
`uextend` operations, especially when coming from Wasm (where truthy
values are naturally `i32`-typed). For example, where we previously had
`(brz (icmp ...))`, we now have `(brz (uextend (icmp ...)))`.

It's arguable whether or not we should switch to `i32` truthy values --
in most cases we can avoid materializing a value that's immediately used
for a branch or select, so a mask would in most cases be unnecessary,
and it would be a win at the IR level -- but irrespective of that, this
change *did* regress our generated code quality: our backends had
patterns for e.g. `(brz (icmp ...))` but not with the `uextend`, so we
were *always* materializing truthy values. Many blocks thus ended with
"cmp; setcc; cmp; test; branch" rather than "cmp; branch".

In bytecodealliance#5391 we noticed this and fixed it on x64, but it was a general
problem on aarch64 and riscv64 as well. This PR introduces a
`maybe_uextend` extractor that "looks through" uextends, and uses it
where we consume truthy values, thus fixing the regression.  This PR
also adds compile filetests to ensure we don't regress again.

The riscv64 backend has not been updated here because doing so appears
to trigger another issue in its branch handling; fixing that is TBD.