Bug 1793410 Comment 14 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Now that we've got the bits changed in the assertion message (per emilio's tweak), we have a tad more info here.  I can see the bits by adding the "Moz crash reason raw" column in the crash reports listing.
The bits in question are in this struct:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/670e2e0999f04dc7734c8c12b2c3d420a1e31f12/dom/base/rust/lib.rs#12
```rust
pub struct ElementState: u64 {
```

Looks like the changed-bits values are all one of the following:
* 140737488355328 (aka `1<<47` which is `VALUE_EMPTY`) -- this is the most common right now, FWIW.
* 4 (aka `1<<2` which is `HOVER`)
* 3072 (aka `1<<10` | `1<<11` which is `VALID` and `INVALID`)
* 15360 (aka bits 10, 11, 12, 13 which is `VALID`, `INVALID`, `USER_VALID`, and `USER_INVALID`)
Now that we've got the bits changed in the assertion message (per emilio's tweak), we have a tad more info here.  I can see the bits by adding the "Moz crash reason raw" column in the crash reports listing.
The names for these bits are in this struct definition:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/670e2e0999f04dc7734c8c12b2c3d420a1e31f12/dom/base/rust/lib.rs#12
```rust
pub struct ElementState: u64 {
```

Looks like the changed-bits values are all one of the following:
* 140737488355328 (aka `1<<47` which is `VALUE_EMPTY`) -- this is the most common right now, FWIW.
* 4 (aka `1<<2` which is `HOVER`)
* 3072 (aka `1<<10` | `1<<11` which is `VALID` and `INVALID`)
* 15360 (aka bits 10, 11, 12, 13 which is `VALID`, `INVALID`, `USER_VALID`, and `USER_INVALID`)
Now that we've got the bits changed in the assertion message (per emilio's tweak), we have a tad more info here.  I can see the bits by adding the "Moz crash reason raw" column in the crash reports listing.
The names for these bits are in this struct definition:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/670e2e0999f04dc7734c8c12b2c3d420a1e31f12/dom/base/rust/lib.rs#12
```rust
pub struct ElementState: u64 {
```

In the last week of crash data, it looks like the changed-bits values are all one of the following:
* 140737488355328 (aka `1<<47` which is `VALUE_EMPTY`) -- this is the most common right now, FWIW.
* 4 (aka `1<<2` which is `HOVER`)
* 3072 (aka `1<<10` | `1<<11` which is `VALID` and `INVALID`)
* 15360 (aka bits 10, 11, 12, 13 which is `VALID`, `INVALID`, `USER_VALID`, and `USER_INVALID`)
Now that we've got the bits changed in the assertion message (per emilio's tweak), we have a tad more info here.  I can see the bits by adding the "Moz crash reason raw" column in the crash reports listing.
The names for these bits are in this struct definition:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/670e2e0999f04dc7734c8c12b2c3d420a1e31f12/dom/base/rust/lib.rs#12
```rust
pub struct ElementState: u64 {
```

In the last week of crash data, it looks like the changed-bits values are all one of the following:
* 140737488355328 (aka `1<<47` which is `VALUE_EMPTY`) -- this is the most common right now, FWIW.
* 4 (aka `1<<2` which is `HOVER`)
* 3072 (aka `1<<10 | 1<<11` which is `VALID` and `INVALID`)
* 15360 (aka bits 10, 11, 12, 13 which is `VALID`, `INVALID`, `USER_VALID`, and `USER_INVALID`)
Now that we've got the bits changed in the assertion message (per emilio's tweak), we have a tad more info here.  I can see the bits by adding the "Moz crash reason raw" column in the crash reports listing.
The names for these bits are in this struct definition:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/670e2e0999f04dc7734c8c12b2c3d420a1e31f12/dom/base/rust/lib.rs#12
```rust
pub struct ElementState: u64 {
```

In the last week of crash data, it looks like the changed-bits values are all one of the following:
* 140737488355328 (aka `1u64<<47` which is `VALUE_EMPTY`) -- this is the most common right now, FWIW.
* 4 (aka `1<<2` which is `HOVER`)
* 3072 (aka `1<<10 | 1<<11` which is `VALID` and `INVALID`)
* 15360 (aka bits 10, 11, 12, 13 which is `VALID`, `INVALID`, `USER_VALID`, and `USER_INVALID`)

Back to Bug 1793410 Comment 14