315549 - [BC] ASSERTION: invalid BC damage area: 'PR_FALSE'

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout: Tables, defect)

Description

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

See upcoming testcase.
I get this assertion in my debug build when hovering over the text:
###!!! ASSERTION: invalid BC damage area: 'PR_FALSE', file c:/mozilla/mozilla/la
yout/tables/nsTableFrame.cpp, line 4577

Comment 1

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Attachment: testcase

Comment 2

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Attachment: debug trace

Sometimes we get a zero-width damage area to SetBCDamageArea().
After doing "newRect.width  = PR_MAX(1, newRect.width)" it is possible
that it's an invalid damage area (that reaches beyond the last column).

Comment 3

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Attachment: wip

This patch fixes the assertion by adjusting 'x'...
An alternative would be to leave 'x' as is unless it's the last col.

Comment 4

[Kenneth Heal]

Crashed on this too whilst testing a fx 2.0.0.3 debug build on a Win98 box.  Machine was too hosed to do very much, but what data I got I shall add as an attachment, in case anyone needs it.

Looking at #3 it looks like this one is fixed, though?

Comment 5

[Kenneth Heal]

Attachment: Stack trace of this crash on fx2003/win98se

Comment 6

[Bob Clary [:bc] (inactive)]

When testing the top sites with a debug trunk linux build earlier this week, I got this assertion 24985 times on 23524 pages. At the time, it made this assert the 2nd most common but since bug 394384 was fixed, that makes this the top assertion. An example reproducible with today's build is <http://telemundo.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTFhZWw1b3JpBF9TAzg5NTQyNjEEcGlkAzIwMjcyNAR0ZXN0AzAEdG1wbANlMV9pbmRleA--/r/tmc>

Comment 7

[Bernd]

>Sometimes we get a zero-width damage area to SetBCDamageArea().

Is that the root cause?

Comment 8

[Bernd]

to be more clear, I am afraid of wall papering.

>An alternative would be to leave 'x' as is unless it's the last col.

that sounds better to me, but I would like to get the zero width   SetBCDamageArea() fixed.

Comment 9

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

Attachment: C++ and JS stack of GMail

So I get this in GMail too. Wonder if we should care more about this assertion?

Comment 10

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Comment on attachment 234595 [details] [diff] [review]
wip

There's a better fix in bug 460637.

Comment 11

[Bernd]

this is fixed by bug 460637, as the testcase involves hovering it makes no sense to check it in as it is.