Closed Bug 348708 Opened 18 years ago Closed 18 years ago

"ASSERTION: same old and new parent frame" adding to optgroup

Categories

(Core :: Layout: Form Controls, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
Layout: Form Controls
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
minor

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: MatsPalmgren_bugz)

References

Details

(Keywords: assertion, regression, testcase)

Attachments

(2 files)

testcase
420 bytes, application/xhtml+xml
Details
Patch rev. 1
2.14 KB, patch
bzbarsky
: review+
bzbarsky
: superreview+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review 
###!!! ASSERTION: same old and new parent frame: 'aOldParentFrame != aNewParentFrame', file /Users/admin/trunk/mozilla/layout/generic/nsHTMLContainerFrame.cpp, line 489

I'm guessing that this is a regression, but I don't have a regression range.
Attached file testcase — 

    
    

    
  
I also see

###!!! ASSERTION: Potential deadlock between Monitor@bfffbc84 and XPCJSRuntime::mMapLockMonitor@212b500: 'Error', file /Users/admin/trunk/mozilla/xpcom/threads/nsAutoLock.cpp, line 302

when I load this testcase from Bugzilla and reload.  I don't know if that's related.

    
  
Assignee: nobody → mats.palmgren
OS: Mac OS X 10.4 → All
Hardware: Macintosh → All

    
    

    
  
The assertion is harmless but noisy.
ReparentFrameViewList will return without any side-effects when
|newParent == parentFrame| and we will do redundant assignment 
after the call in nsCSSFrameConstructor.
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=/mozilla/layout/generic/nsHTMLContainerFrame.cpp&rev=3.217&root=/cvsroot&mark=520#481

I don't see the second assertion (in comment 2) and I'm pretty sure
it's unrelated.
Severity: normal → minor

    
    

    
  

      
      
      
      

        Attached patch
          
          
        Patch rev. 1
        — 
          — Splinter Review
      

    


  

        Attachment #234524 -
        Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)

        Attachment #234524 -
        Flags: review?(bzbarsky)

    
    

    
  
Comment on attachment 234524 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch rev. 1

Yeah, makes sense.

        Attachment #234524 -
        Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)

        Attachment #234524 -
        Flags: superreview+

        Attachment #234524 -
        Flags: review?(bzbarsky)

        Attachment #234524 -
        Flags: review+

    
    

    
  
Checked in to trunk at 2006-08-21 19:29 PDT.

-> FIXED
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

    
    

    
  
Crashtest checked in.
Flags: in-testsuite+

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