PSA: glibc buildbot slave up for aarch64

[Joseph Myers]

On Tue, 2 May 2017, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> On Tuesday 02 May 2017 09:13 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > Like I said elsewhere in the thread, I don't disagree with it being a
> > partial hack to try and get people interested and I've settled for
> > sending out weekly spam to the list instead.
> 
> Actually on that note, can we create a 'testsuite-fail' keyword to track
> these separately?

Would such keywords also cover cases marked as expected to fail within the 
tests themselves (so the overall status of a test ends up as PASS)?  E.g. 
bugs 14362, 16437, 16919, 17786, 18228, 18231, 18232, 21260, 21278, 21279 
have such local xfail markings within the conform/ tests so they don't 
hide failures for other test assertions within the same (standard, header) 
pairs.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com