[2.20] [3/6] Support expected failures in .test-result files

[Brooks Moses]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> What do you think of putting the XFAIL information in a separate file that
>> could potentially be easily read by alternate test drivers, to facilitate
>> future portability?  (And also this would ensure that it the information is
>> always in a canonical location.)
>
> I'd rather the information was alongside the definitions of what tests to
> run when, which is in the makefiles.  See my remark about the policy
> question of marking tests as expected to fail for particular architectures
> in their sysdeps makefiles.

Fair enough.  That argument makes sense to me, and I agree that if we
keep a policy that global xfails go next to the test definition and
port-specific ones go in the sysdeps makefile, they shouldn't get
lost.  Global xfails should be quite rare in any case.

- Brooks