As @yamt points out [here], the `wait`/`notify` pairing used in this
manual WAT test was not effective. The `wait` always immediately
returned, meaning that the main thread essentially spins until a counter
is atomically incremented. This is fine for test correctness, but was
not the original intent, which was lost in a refactoring. This change
uses the `$i` local to keep track of the counter value we expect to see
for the `wait`, so that the `wait`/`notify` pair actually waits as
expected.
[here]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/5484#discussion_r1101200012
f6b16a7178