Reuben Thomas <r...@sc3d.org> writes: > On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> 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
