x86: don't request useless overflow checking

Relocations with a bitsize matching the architecture's address width
can't usefully use an overflow checking approach other than "dont" or
"signed": All others involve perhaps complex calculations in
_bfd_relocate_contents() (or, not as severe, in bfd_check_overflow())
without ever finding anything to complain about - because of the address
width masking applied. Avoid this unnecessary overhead and switch all
such reloc types to "dont".

Note that "signed" checking with rela relocations (i.e. x86-64 here) is
only going to be useful if the addend actually got passed to
_bfd_relocate_contents() (and maybe others) instead of bogusly adding in
prior section contents (which apparently is assumed to be zero, and
hence again no overflow would ever be detected). See
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-April/116164.html.