Removal of VAX/VMS support

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:44:58AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>> > If no one is maintaining a target it should go.
> 
>> 
>> I agree, but how do you know nobody is maintaining it?
> 
> 
> Lack of an entry in binutils/MAINTAINERS.

BTW, GDB has up-to-date but unmaintained targets.  This occures when 
corporations [indirectly] fund individuals to perform the maintenance. 
The individuals interest in the target never lasts longer than the next 
pay cheque :-)

Consequently, GDB is using goal based criteria such as `it must be 
multi-arch' .  Targets are then given (a remarkably long) time to 
upgrade.  There is also an expectation that new targets meet such 
criteria from day one.

I should emphasize that it is definitly carrot and stick - target 
maintainers need to see a return on their effort.  Requiring multi-arch 
made possible things like i386 debugging on x86-64 (and made GDB in 
general soo much easier).  Frame unwinders made possible a robust DWARF2 
CFI implementation (and fixes soo many bugs).

Andrew