DmdAnal: Implement Boxity Analysis (#19871)

This patch fixes some abundant reboxing of `DynFlags` in
`GHC.HsToCore.Match.Literal.warnAboutOverflowedLit` (which was the topic
of #19407) by introducing a Boxity analysis to GHC, done as part of demand
analysis. This allows to accurately capture ad-hoc unboxing decisions previously
made in worker/wrapper in demand analysis now, where the boxity info can
propagate through demand signatures.

See the new `Note [Boxity analysis]`. The actual fix for #19407 is described in
`Note [No lazy, Unboxed demand in demand signature]`, but
`Note [Finalising boxity for demand signature]` is probably a better entry-point.

To support the fix for #19407, I had to change (what was)
`Note [Add demands for strict constructors]` a bit
(now `Note [Unboxing evaluated arguments]`). In particular, we now take care of
it in `finaliseBoxity` (which is only called from demand analaysis) instead of
`wantToUnboxArg`.

I also had to resurrect `Note [Product demands for function body]` and rename
it to `Note [Unboxed demand on function bodies returning small products]` to
avoid huge regressions in `join004` and `join007`, thereby fixing #4267 again.
See the updated Note for details.

A nice side-effect is that the worker/wrapper transformation no longer needs to
look at strictness info and other bits such as `InsideInlineableFun` flags
(needed for `Note [Do not unbox class dictionaries]`) at all. It simply collects
boxity info from argument demands and interprets them with a severely simplified
`wantToUnboxArg`. All the smartness is in `finaliseBoxity`, which could be moved
to DmdAnal completely, if it wasn't for the call to `dubiousDataConInstArgTys`
which would be awkward to export.

I spent some time figuring out the reason for why `T16197` failed prior to my
amendments to `Note [Unboxing evaluated arguments]`. After having it figured
out, I minimised it a bit and added `T16197b`, which simply compares computed
strictness signatures and thus should be far simpler to eyeball.

The 12% ghc/alloc regression in T11545 is because of the additional `Boxity`
field in `Poly` and `Prod` that results in more allocation during `lubSubDmd`
and `plusSubDmd`. I made sure in the ticky profiles that the number of calls
to those functions stayed the same. We can bear such an increase here, as we
recently improved it by -68% (in b760c1f7).
T18698* regress slightly because there is more unboxing of dictionaries
happening and that causes Lint (mostly) to allocate more.

Fixes #19871, #19407, #4267, #16859, #18907 and #13331.

Metric Increase:
    T11545
    T18698a
    T18698b

Metric Decrease:
    T12425
    T16577
    T18223
    T18282
    T4267
    T9961