Subject: bug#23521: XFAIL

From: Mathieu Lirzin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:49:54 +0200

Reuben Thomas <[email-masked]> writes:

> 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”?
>     
>
> ​A custom test driver.​

OK, I wasn't sure.  Indeed a custom test driver seems a bit heavy just
checking failures.  IMO the solution Peter proposed is nice and simple.

-- 
Mathieu Lirzin