Subject: Re: bug#23521: XFAIL

From: Gavin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:58:02 +0100

On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so that
>> they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for example, an
>> extra driver that converts expected errors into success codes for the
>> automake test harness.
>
> What do you mean precisely by “an extra driver”?

This would be a reference to a "custom test driver".
https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Overview-of-Custom-Test-Drivers-Support.html#Overview-of-Custom-Test-Drivers-Support