Mark dashing_gpu and complexclip2_rect_aa_gpu as ignore-failure on Win7 perspective

expectations/gm/Test-Win7-ShuttleA-HD2000-x86-Release/expected-results.json

Index: expectations/gm/Test-Win7-ShuttleA-HD2000-x86-Release/expected-results.json
diff --git a/expectations/gm/Test-Win7-ShuttleA-HD2000-x86-Release/expected-results.json b/expectations/gm/Test-Win7-ShuttleA-HD2000-x86-Release/expected-results.json
index 7bf657473d63231afccd3a06c8920a667dae64e6..7644499e224cce50f36bd223f6ff4476ac3a853e 100644
--- a/expectations/gm/Test-Win7-ShuttleA-HD2000-x86-Release/expected-results.json
+++ b/expectations/gm/Test-Win7-ShuttleA-HD2000-x86-Release/expected-results.json
@@ -3790,6 +3790,7 @@
           3908297226363946093
         ]
       ], 
+      "ignore-failure": true,

[epoger, 2014/03/24 18:36:02]

It worries me to mark results as ignore-failure without a tracking bug (as in
this case) or associated with a bug which is already marked as fixed (as for
dashing_gpu.png).

Maybe associate these with bug 2245, and keep it open (low priority) to track?

       "reviewed-by-human": true
     }, 
     "complexclip2_rect_aa_pdf-poppler.png": {
@@ -4512,7 +4513,8 @@
       ], 
       "bugs": [
         2146
-      ], 
+      ],
+      "ignore-failure": true,
       "reviewed-by-human": false
     }, 
     "dashing_pdf-poppler.png": {
@@ -13084,4 +13086,4 @@
       "reviewed-by-human": false
     }
   }
-}
+}