Update tests in preparation for shipping classes.

test/test262/test262.status

Index: test/test262/test262.status
diff --git a/test/test262/test262.status b/test/test262/test262.status
index 82a962b021076d54f8a14ced71b1649efd497300..d32f8f30a36f484b0a613e5c833a48bac554b844 100644
--- a/test/test262/test262.status
+++ b/test/test262/test262.status
@@ -37,15 +37,19 @@
 
   ############################### ES6 ###################################
   # ES6 allows block-local functions.
-  'Sbp_A1_T1': [PASS, FAIL],
-  'Sbp_A2_T1': [PASS, FAIL],
-  'Sbp_A2_T2': [PASS, FAIL],
-  'Sbp_A3_T1': [PASS, FAIL],
-  'Sbp_A3_T2': [PASS, FAIL],
-  'Sbp_A4_T1': [PASS, FAIL],
-  'Sbp_A4_T2': [PASS, FAIL],
+  'Sbp_A1_T1': [PASS, FAIL_OK],

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2014/12/11 15:16:22]

Do you know if this format is documented anywhere?

[Dmitry Lomov (no reviews), 2014/12/11 15:26:15]

No, apparently it is "self-evident" ;)
FAIL is a bug, and FAIL_OK is "deliberate violation", otherwise they are
equivalent - we expect test to fail.

+  'Sbp_A2_T1': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
+  'Sbp_A2_T2': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
+  'Sbp_A3_T1': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
+  'Sbp_A3_T2': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
+  'Sbp_A4_T1': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
+  'Sbp_A4_T2': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
   'Sbp_A5_T1': [PASS], # Test is broken (strict reference to unbound variable)
-  'Sbp_A5_T2': [PASS, FAIL],
+  'Sbp_A5_T2': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
+
+  # Passes in ES6 since {__arr} syntax is parsed as object literal.
+  'S12.1_A4_T2': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
+  'S12.6.4_A15': [PASS, FAIL_OK],
 
   ######################## NEEDS INVESTIGATION ###########################