Closed Bug 776337 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

"ASSERTION: Should not use nsSVGIntegrationUtils on this SVG frame"

Categories

(Core :: SVG, defect)

x86_64
macOS
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

VERIFIED FIXED
mozilla17
Tracking Status
firefox15 --- unaffected
firefox16 + verified
firefox17 --- verified

People

(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: jwatt)

References

Details

(Keywords: assertion, testcase)

Attachments

(3 files)

Attached image testcase
###!!! ASSERTION: Should not use nsSVGIntegrationUtils on this SVG frame: '!svgChildFrame || (NS_SVGDisplayListPaintingEnabled() && !(aFrame->GetStateBits() & NS_STATE_SVG_NONDISPLAY_CHILD))', file layout/svg/base/src/nsSVGIntegrationUtils.cpp, line 390
Attached file stack trace
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
The assertion is getting upset because nsSVGOuterSVGFrame implements nsISVGChildFrame. The assertion should just check for the NS_FRAME_SVG_LAYOUT bit instead of nsISVGChildFrame.
Assignee: nobody → jwatt
Attachment #647343 - Flags: review?(roc)
The test in bug 768351 is essentially the same as this one, which is why I didn't include it in this patch as a crashtest.
Pushed https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/eaa1c9822d8a
Blocks: 768351
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla17
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/eaa1c9822d8a
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment on attachment 647343 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

[Approval Request Comment]

The real bug we want to fix on aurora is bug 779403, but that bug depends on the fix in bug 768351, which in turn depends on the fix in this bug, so requesting approval on this patch.

Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 738192
User impact if declined: SVG masking is broken
Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): patch has been on m-c for several days
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): none
String or UUID changes made by this patch: none
Attachment #647343 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Err, for "Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky)" I seem to have only processed the "alternatives" part. The risk is very low though, but yeah, there aren't really any viable alternatives.
Attachment #647343 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Keywords: verifyme
Saw the assertion on 2012-07-22-mozilla-central-debug build.
Verified fixed on FF 16 2012-09-19-mozilla-beta-debug build on Mac OS X 10.7.4.
QA Contact: paul.silaghi
Verified fixed on FF 17 2012-10-15-mozilla-beta-debug build on Mac OS X 10.7.4.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Keywords: verifyme
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: