Re: RFC: remove a bunch of testsuite/**/configure scripts

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> I'm in favor of at least removing the configure script.  For
Joel> the Makefiles (would we keep the master one in gdb/testsuite/?,

Either way is ok.

I think there is probably enough code in testsuite/Makefile.in to
warrant keeping it around.  Ordinarily I think it is better, for
parallelism, to have as few Makefiles as possible, but that doesn't seem
like a real consideration in this case.

Joel> I'd say yes, at least as a first step), it's a tougher one. I think
Joel> it depends on what the consequences in terms of funtionality would
Joel> be. I don't mind losing "make clean" capability in the testsuite
Joel> area, but that might be problems for those who build in-tree
Joel> (sacrilege! :-).

All these Makefiles exist only for "make clean".
Until Michael's patch last week, they didn't even successfully do that :-)
In fact, depending on the target, that may still be the case; I don't
know for certain but I suspect so.

I wonder whether we could arrange to invoke runtest in a subdirectory.
Then "make clean" would be "rm -rf testdir".
This would break "clean" for those people invoking runtest by hand though.

Personally I never run "make clean" for the testsuite and I really
couldn't care less if it stopped working.  Is there anybody who does
care and rely on this?  If you do use it -- why?  I would rather not go
through a bunch of gyrations for a feature that no developer uses.

Tom