Removal of VAX/VMS support

[Andrew Cagney]

>> If a platform is dead, it should go.
> 
> 
> I disagree here.  We don't know it's dead until someone complains that
> it doesn't work.

Catch 22.  If you don't try to break/delete target's, you'll never 
delete any dead ones.

>> The maintainers don't have the resources to spring clean all those
>> obscure targets every time a core change is made.  Trying to this
>> only results in much wasted effort and a bunch of buildable yet
>> still broken targets.
> 
> 
> I agree.  But that doesn't give us an excuse to dump a port that *is*
> working.

Unless someone is using the target, how do you know it's working? 
Because it builds?  Because it passes the testsuite?  Both are weak 
criteria and GDB's experience demonstrates this.  Ex: h8500 which was 
broken for 4 years yet no one noticed.  Ex: i960 which `worked' yet no 
one was willing to work on it.

If a target isn't living, it should be deleted.  If a target needs to be 
live, someone will find the resources to revive it.  Ex: m32r which was 
recently revived. (Note that this includes the FSF which may dedicate 
volunteer resources.)

I think the problem here is that people seriously underestimate the 
overhead of maintaining multiple targets.  They, being typical 
optomistic software engineers, think the cost is linear when in reality 
it is somewhere between quadratic and expotential.

BINUTILS being able to boast support for N dead targets helps no one, 
least of all the BINUTILS developer community.

Andrew