295505 - GPF in GDI.exe when visiting this page (and others)

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Scott R. Godin]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

when attempting to view this page, I get a GPF in GDI.exe 

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. start firefox
2. go to http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.adobe.com/
3.

Actual Results:  
GPF

Expected Results:  
proper display of html validator warnings page

info from windows: 

FIREFOX caused a general protection fault
in module GDI.EXE at 0014:000007b6.
Registers:
EAX=01010001 CS=054f EIP=000007b6 EFLGS=00000246
EBX=00000000 SS=a5b7 ESP=000079ca EBP=00007a20
ECX=00000002 DS=18af ESI=00000618 FS=0000
EDX=00000000 ES=3bee EDI=00000ca0 GS=0627
Bytes at CS:EIP:
ab 85 c0 0f 84 98 00 89 7e d6 33 d2 8b c2 24 07 
Stack dump:
000009f4 00040000 00010627 000000ff 000000cf 0001a5b7 00080618 00010619 
00000001 00000000 00000000 00010c98 000005cc 06181f01 3bee0000 00000c9a 

the talkback module doesn't kick in when this happens so I can't get you more 
detailed info at this point.

Comment 1

[Anders Conbere]

WFM

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050512 Firefox/1.0.4
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050514 Firefox/1.0+

Comment 2

[Peter van der Woude [:Peter6]]

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050525
Firefox/1.0+ ID:2005052508

WFM

Comment 3

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

WFM Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050525
and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050525
Firefox/1.0+

Comment 4

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

This looks like a graphic card driver issue. Which Card and Drievr Version are
you using and have you tested an updated driver version ?

BTW: GPF in gdi.exe is win98 specific....

Comment 5

[Scott R. Godin]

Attachment: screen capture 1

Comment 6

[Scott R. Godin]

Attachment: screen capture 2

Comment 7

[Scott R. Godin]

Attachment: screen capture 3

Comment 8

[Scott R. Godin]

attached some screencaptures showing driver/display adapter info from windows
display control panel. 

Comment 9

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

If you select performance in the display options and and set it to the slowest
setting, do you still crash ?

Comment 10

[Scott R. Godin]

(In reply to comment #9)
> If you select performance in the display options and and set it to the slowest
> setting, do you still crash ?

I'll double-check this when I get back home in two weeks. ( on vacation :) Good
thought though. Will let you know what happens. 

Comment 11

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 12

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.