Remove the `run-pass-valgrind` test suite

[jieyouxu]

Proposal

Remove the run-pass-valgrind test suite. This test suite is not properly hooked up to bootstrap, and run-pass-valgrind tests don't actually get exercised under valgrind. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1b3b8e7b0265162853c650ead09905bc3cdaeae9/src/tools/compiletest/src/runtest/valgrind.rs#L7-L12. Providing valgrind paths was not hooked up to bootstrap and our CI jobs don't run it. opt-dist currently run the run-pass-valgrind tests but because it's not properly hooked up in bootstrap, they are just naive run-pass tests.

Mentors or Reviewers

Bootstrap reviewers (@Kobzol who is already reviewing the https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131351 PR).

Process

The main points of the Major Change Process are as follows:

• [x] File an issue describing the proposal.
• [ ] A compiler team member or contributor who is knowledgeable in the area can second by writing @rustbot second.
  • Finding a "second" suffices for internal changes. If however, you are proposing a new public-facing feature, such as a -C flag, then full team check-off is required.
  • Compiler team members can initiate a check-off via @rfcbot fcp merge on either the MCP or the PR.
• [ ] Once an MCP is seconded, the Final Comment Period begins. If no objections are raised after 10 days, the MCP is considered approved.

You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.

Comments

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

[rustbot]

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

Concerns or objections to the proposal should be discussed on Zulip and formally registered here by adding a comment with the following syntax:

 @rustbot concern reason-for-concern 
 <description of the concern> 

Concerns can be lifted with:

 @rustbot resolve reason-for-concern 

See documentation at https://forge.rust-lang.org

cc @rust-lang/compiler @rust-lang/compiler-contributors

[Urgau]

@rustbot second

[Noratrieb]

i feel like an MCP is overkill for something like this. tests that don't work and don't run are obviously bad! (don't wait for the 10 days, just merge)

[apiraino]

As I said on Zulip, I agree but I felt that an MCP could be useful to let everyone know

[apiraino]

anyway

@rustbot label -final-comment-period +major-change-accepted