Too many warnings: WARNING: 'obs', file ../mozilla/image/RasterImage.cpp Line 1402, etc. during FULL DEBUG version of C-C TB |make mozmill| test.

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 56

Status

()

Core
ImageLib
RESOLVED FIXED
7 months ago
7 months ago

People

(Reporter: ISHIKAWA, Chiaki, Assigned: mak)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla56
x86_64
Linux
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox56 fixed)

Details

MozReview Requests

()

Submitter Diff Changes Open Issues Last Updated
Loading...
Error loading review requests:

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

7 months ago
(I said the platform is linux x86_64, but I suspect it can be any platform.)

I noticed that there are many warnings lines in one of the forms
during running |make mozmill| test of FULL DEBUG build of  C-C TB.

[5101] WARNING: 'obs', file /NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/comm-central/mozilla/image/RasterImage.cpp, line 1402
 [5101] WARNING: 'obs', file /NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/comm-central/mozilla/image/ImageFactory.cpp, line 99
 [5101] WARNING: 'obs', file /NREF-COMM-CENTRAL/comm-central/mozilla/image/VectorImage.cpp, line 1032

I suspect these warnings are also observed by M-C FF test. If not, then there must be a subtle difference between how C-C TB and M-C FF calls graphics functions.

The warning lines are too numerous and actually hinder debugging when I run the 
FULL DEBUG version of C-C TB on my local PC's terminal console.
The warning lines basically moves other interesting warning/dump lines off the screen too quickly.

I am not even sure what 'obs' means.

Anyway, I have not noticed this issue  about a week ago, and only noticed the issue after refreshing the source code on the weekend.

TIA
(Assignee)

Comment 1

7 months ago
This is quite annoying when running tests, 80% of the output is these warnings.
(Assignee)

Comment 2

7 months ago
the code also looks wrong

if (NS_WARN_IF(obs)) {

I suspect the intent was the opposite, to warn if obs was not defined?
Comment hidden (mozreview-request)
(Assignee)

Updated

7 months ago
Assignee: nobody → mak77
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

Comment 4

7 months ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8883288 [details]
Bug 1377920 - Too many WARNING: 'obs' from imagelib in debug builds.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/154206/#review159334
Attachment #8883288 - Flags: review?(aosmond) → review+

Comment 5

7 months ago
Pushed by mak77@bonardo.net:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/5bfa0808e8d9
Too many WARNING: 'obs' from imagelib in debug builds. r=aosmond

Comment 6

7 months ago
bugherder
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5bfa0808e8d9
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 7 months ago
status-firefox56: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla56
Next time please properly block this bug with the bug that caused the problem (it should be very easy to find in searchfox) and cc the author/reviewer. We just did the same work in bug 1377923.
Blocks: 1363059
Duplicate of this bug: 1377923
(Assignee)

Comment 9

7 months ago
(In reply to Johann Hofmann [:johannh] from comment #7)
> Next time please properly block this bug with the bug that caused the
> problem (it should be very easy to find in searchfox) and cc the
> author/reviewer. We just did the same work in bug 1377923.

good point, on the other side the other bug was filed later, and someone should have looked for dupes :(
(Reporter)

Comment 10

7 months ago
(In reply to Johann Hofmann [:johannh] from comment #7)
> Next time please properly block this bug with the bug that caused the
> problem (it should be very easy to find in searchfox) and cc the
> author/reviewer. We just did the same work in bug 1377923.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is searchfox [I will google it], but if it is so good then
why on earth it is NOT used for the search box for bugzilla? inquiring mind wants to know.

TIA
(Assignee)

Comment 11

7 months ago
http://searchfox.org/ is just a service to search in the mozilla codebase, it also gives the blame information for each line.
So it was potentially possible to check the blame for the rows specified in the warning, and figure out which bug introduced those warnings.
Fwiw, I don't think you did anything wrong!
(Reporter)

Comment 12

7 months ago
(In reply to Marco Bonardo [::mak] from comment #11)
> http://searchfox.org/ is just a service to search in the mozilla codebase,
> it also gives the blame information for each line.
> So it was potentially possible to check the blame for the rows specified in
> the warning, and figure out which bug introduced those warnings.
> Fwiw, I don't think you did anything wrong!

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I did not find any related bugzilla entries when I searched for the issue when I filed the bugzilla entry. Now I can find three closed bugzilla entries.

Just a side note: I suspect that many would-be reporters of a bug/feature issue to bugzilla are discouraged to report
a bugzilla when they noticed that a colon in "WARNING: 'obs', file ..." is considered to introduce a field search for WARNING field, and the semantics of quotes, say ' and/or " is not quite obvious, etc.
We probably need a better front end for the novice users for simple string search.
But again this is a side note and should be discussed elsewhere.

BTW, I found 'searchfox' a good frontend for dxr.mozilla.org for searching for blame. One less click to search for and unlike the dxr tool, the display mode does not change due to the clicking on "blame" button, etc.
Too bad it is only for mozilla-central. :-(
It's all good. I don't think blocking the regressing bug is an obligation of the bug author. In my experience, when fixing/investigating regressions I come across blame info quite quickly. Then, my first reaction is to set the correct blocking bug and cc the people who were involved.

I was just pointing out that this is a good practice that we should try to follow in the future, which I assume you both agree with. I didn't mean to blame anyone. Thanks for reporting and fixing this bug. :)
(Reporter)

Comment 14

7 months ago
(I thought I replied to this post, but obviously it somehow did not get posted properly.)

(In reply to Johann Hofmann [:johannh] from comment #13)
> It's all good. I don't think blocking the regressing bug is an obligation of
> the bug author. In my experience, when fixing/investigating regressions I
> come across blame info quite quickly. 
This shows that you are a very experienced mozilla contributor ! :-)

> Then, my first reaction is to set the
> correct blocking bug and cc the people who were involved.
I see.
> 
> I was just pointing out that this is a good practice that we should try to
> follow in the future, which I assume you both agree with. 
Yes, I agree.

"searchfox" is a nice tool to find "blame" on M-C tree.
Too bad, it does not seem to support C-C tree.

> I didn't mean to
> blame anyone. Thanks for reporting and fixing this bug. :)
No hard feeling. Like I said, as far as M-C tree goes, I think I can use "searchfox" to my advantage.
It is just that if I report a new bug only in several weeks apart, my memory fails :-)

TIA
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.