[PATCH] Remove symlinks created in argv0-symlink.exp and general cleanup

[Joel Brobecker]

> I don't have a strong opinion on making in-tree testing unsupported,
> but I do have a strong opinion on another thing that can make the
> in-tree testing issue moot.
> 
> Let's remove all of testsuite/*/Makefile.in, they're always
> out of date anyway (i.e., no one updates gdb.foo/Makefile.in to
> remove binaries added by new tests),
> and except for "make clean" aren't really used for anything.
> The "make clean" in testsuite/Makefile.in can just "rm -rf foo bar ..."
> [where "foo bar ..." are *not* the gdb.* testsuite dirs, but rather
> the outputs,etc. directories of check-parallel]
> IOW, testing would create the needed directories on the fly,
> even in serial mode,
> and to simplify "make clean" they'd always be put in a fixed
> subdir of testsuite (just like check-parallel does now).

I think some of these issues are worth improving independently
of whether the build was in-tree or not.

> As for whether to always have one directory per test
> (in serial and parallel modes), that *could* be treated as a separate
> issue, but if it reduces complexity by doing the same thing
> for serial and parallel then great.
> [And while in-tree testing could still be unsupported,
> I think(!) the current issue with it would be fixed.]

If in-tree build happens to work without effort from us, then
OK to continue having it. But I don't think treating as bugs
issues that are specific to in-tree building & testing would
be the best investment of our resources.

I tried to remember why people thought in-tree building is more
convenient for them, and couldn't remember of any reason other
than convenience. But is it really more convenient? Are there
other reasons I forgot about?

-- 
Joel