testsuite: Fix up pr109011-*.c tests for powerpc [PR109572]

testsuite: Fix up pr109011-*.c tests for powerpc [PR109572]

As reported, pr109011-{4,5}.c tests fail on powerpc.
I thought they should have the same counts as the corresponding -{2,3}.c
tests, the only difference is that -{2,3}.c are int while -{4,5}.c are
long long.  But there are 2 issues.  One is that in the foo
function the vectorization costs comparison triggered in, while in -{2,3}.c
we use vectorization factor 4 and it was found beneficial, when using
long long it was just vf 2 and the scalar cost of doing
p[i] = __builtin_ctzll (q[i]) twice looked smaller than the vectorizated
statements.  I could disable the cost model, but instead chose to add
some further arithmetics to those functions to make it beneficial even
with vf 2.
After that change, pr109011-4.c still failed; I was expecting 4 .CTZ calls
there on power9, 3 vectorized and one in scalar code, but for some reason
the scalar one didn't trigger.  As I really want to count just the
vectorized calls, I've added the vect prefix on the variables to ensure
I'm only counting vectorized calls and decreased the 4 counts to 3.

2023-04-22  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR testsuite/109572
	* gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-1.c: In scan-tree-dump-times regexps match also
	vect prefix to make sure we only count vectorized calls.
	* gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-2.c: Likewise.  On powerpc* expect just count 3
	rather than 4.
	* gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-3.c: In scan-tree-dump-times regexps match also
	vect prefix to make sure we only count vectorized calls.
	* gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-4.c: Likewise.  On powerpc* expect just count 3
	rather than 4.
	(foo): Add 2 further arithmetic ops to the loop to make it appear
	worthwhile for vectorization heuristics on powerpc.
	* gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-5.c: In scan-tree-dump-times regexps match also
	vect prefix to make sure we only count vectorized calls.
	(foo): Add 2 further arithmetic ops to the loop to make it appear
	worthwhile for vectorization heuristics on powerpc.