On 17 January 2018 at 19:13, Stephen Finucane <step...@that.guru> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 11:46 +0000, Benjamin Copeland wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Been trying to get a patch but been unable due to: >> >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "pwclient", line 827, in <module> >> main() >> File "pwclient", line 780, in main >> action_get(rpc, patch_id) >> File "pwclient", line 301, in action_get >> s = rpc.patch_get_mbox(patch_id) >> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1243, in __call__ >> return self.__send(self.__name, args) >> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1602, in __request >> verbose=self.__verbose >> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1283, in request >> return self.single_request(host, handler, request_body, verbose) >> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1316, in >> single_request >> return self.parse_response(response) >> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1487, in >> parse_response >> p.feed(data) >> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 558, in feed >> self._parser.Parse(data, 0) >> xml.parsers.expat.ExpatError: not well-formed (invalid token): line >> 283, column 1 >> >> After going quite a bit of debugging I noticed the patch has a ^L >> (FF) in the diff. After deleting this out of the diff pwclient was >> able to get the patch. >> >> This bug was present on Python3/2. > > Have you got a link to the offending patch? This will allow me to fix > the issue and put together a fix to prevent regressions.
https://patches-gcc.linaro.org/patch/411/ > > Stephen _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork