[clang] [NFC] Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. (PR #139607)

[Sean Fertile via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -1,20 +1,10 @@
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
 // RUN:   -mcpu=pwr10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
----------------
mandlebug wrote:

The P10 run step uses the `pwr` format. I think one run step for each mcpu format is adequate. Realistically we should have other coverage that ensures that the 2 formats sets up the same environment and this test could use just one format either way, but since we have a run step for a target greater then 8 anyway I thought to test one of each.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139607