[cairo] [PATCH] Don't mention XFAIL_TESTS anymore

[Chris Wilson]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:11PM +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> +/*
> + * XFAIL: lacks implementation in pixman and consequently used as an excuse for
> + * lack of support in other backends
> + */

This is now bogus.

>  CAIRO_TEST (extend_pad,
>  	    "Test CAIRO_EXTEND_PAD for surface patterns",
>  	    "extend", /* keywords */

> +/*
> + * XFAIL: The essential problem here is that the recording-surface has recorded
> + * a sequence of operations with one device transformation, and we attempt to
> + * replay it with another (basically a scale-factor for the falback resolution).
> + * Carl begun to look at this with his chain-of-bugs, but the can of worms is
> + * much bigger.  It appears to be a design flaw in the recording-surface that
> + * may spread further...  My solution would be to lock Behad and Adrian in a
> + * room, with Carl as a moderator and not let them out until they have come up
> + * with an interface and semantics that actually work. :-)
> + */

This is supposed to work nowadays. (Albeit a persistent bug or two.)

>  CAIRO_TEST (fallback_resolution,
>  	    "Check handling of fallback resolutions",
>  	    "fallback", /* keywords */

> +/*
> + * XFAIL: The cairo_in_fill () function can sometimes produce false positives
> + * when the tessellator produces empty trapezoids and the query point lands
> + * exactly on a trapezoid edge.
> + */

This had better be working now ...

> +/* XFAIL: pixman's fixed point format. */

Works now (or rather we have just pushed the range failure farther out).

>  CAIRO_TEST (scale_offset_similar,
>  	    "Tests drawing surfaces under various scales and transforms",
>  	    "surface, scale-offset", /* keywords */


I think we can loose the warnings in all these cases.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre