Don't warn about missed specialisations for ClassOps.

I wrote this note to explain the reasoning which I will just quote in full.

{- Note [Missed specialisation for ClassOps]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In #19592 I saw a number of missed specialisation warnings
which were the result of things like:

    case isJumpishInstr @X86.Instr $dInstruction_s7f8 eta3_a78C of { ...

where isJumpishInstr is part of the Instruction class and defined like
this:

    class Instruction instr where
        ...
        isJumpishInstr :: instr -> Bool
        ...

isJumpishInstr is a ClassOp which will select the right method
from within the dictionary via our built in rules. See also
Note [ClassOp/DFun selection] in GHC.Tc.TyCl.Instance.

We don't give these unfoldings, and as a result the specialiser
complains. But usually this doesn't matter. The simplifier will
apply the rule and we end up with

    case isJumpishInstrImplX86 eta3_a78C of { ...

Since isJumpishInstrImplX86 is defined for a concrete instance (given
by the dictionary) it is usually already well specialised!
Theoretically the implementation of a method could still be overloaded
over a different type class than what it's a method of. But I wasn't able
to make this go wrong, and SPJ thinks this should be fine as well.

So I decided to remove the warnings for failed specialisations on ClassOps
alltogether as they do more harm than good.

See also #19586 (closed)