Closed
Bug 358720
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
Crash [@ nsAccessibilityService::GetAccessible]
Categories
(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: smaug, Assigned: smaug)
Details
(Keywords: access, fixed1.8.1.1)
Attachments
(1 file)
|
2.11 KB,
patch
|
aaronlev
:
review+
neil
:
superreview+
dveditz
:
approval1.8.1.1+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Currently #40 in FF2 topcrashers list.
nsAccessibilityService::GetAccessible [mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessibilityService.cpp, line 1829]
nsAccessibilityService::GetAccessibleInShell [mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessibilityService.cpp, line 1720]
nsAccessNode::Init [mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessNode.cpp, line 128]
nsAccessible::Init [mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessible.cpp, line 419]
nsAccessibilityService::InitAccessible [mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessibilityService.cpp, line 1743]
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
> nsAccessibilityService::GetAccessible
> [mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessibilityService.cpp, line 1829]
What do this mean? nsAccessibilityService.cpp haven't so many lines. I can assume only it's not on trunk.
Comment 2•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #0)
> Currently #40 in FF2 topcrashers list.
(In reply to comment #1)
> > nsAccessibilityService::GetAccessible
> > [mozilla/accessible/src/base/nsAccessibilityService.cpp, line 1829]
>
> What do this mean? nsAccessibilityService.cpp haven't so many lines. I can
> assume only it's not on trunk.
>
Sorry, I can see.
Version: Trunk → 1.8 Branch
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•19 years ago
|
||
This should fix it. CreateRootAccessible may return null
nsIAccessible object.
Assignee: aaronleventhal → Olli.Pettay
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: review?(aaronleventhal)
Comment 4•19 years ago
|
||
Why does it return null in those cases?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•19 years ago
|
||
At least when OOM, but I think also during shutdown when document is
being deleted.
Comment 6•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 244074 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch
Null check is fine but where's the stack trace? There's a deeper issue that we shouldn't be trying to create a doc or root accessible for an object getting torn down.
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: review?(aaronleventhal) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #6)
> (From update of attachment 244074 [details] [diff] [review] [edit])
> Null check is fine but where's the stack trace?
http://talkback-public.mozilla.org/talkback/fastfind.jsp?search=1&searchby=stacksig&match=contains&searchfor=nsAccessibilityService::GetAccessible&vendor=MozillaOrg&product=Firefox2&platform=All&buildid=&sdate=&stime=&edate=&etime=&sortby=bbid
;)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8.1.1?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 8•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 244074 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch
Does this need sr+ ?
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: superreview?(neil)
Comment 9•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 244074 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch
This doesn't need sr=.
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: superreview?(neil)
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 244074 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch
Sorry, let me correct that. It needs sr= in order to be approved for branch.
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: superreview?(neil)
Comment 11•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=244074) [edit]
> proposed patch
- NS_ASSERTION(newAcc, "No root/doc accessible created");
+ NS_WARN_IF_FALSE(newAcc, "No root/doc accessible created");
what's different?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #11)
>
> - NS_ASSERTION(newAcc, "No root/doc accessible created");
> + NS_WARN_IF_FALSE(newAcc, "No root/doc accessible created");
>
> what's different?
>
Assertion is assertion, warning just a warning :)
Assertions may abort, at least in some tboxes.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: superreview?(neil) → superreview+
| Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: approval1.8.1.1?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 13•19 years ago
|
||
Checked in to trunk
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 14•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 244074 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch
>+ *aFrameHint = nsnull;
why we set *aFrameHint null here? does this have anything to do with this bug?
I don't understand this part of code much, but this change would make this "if()" statement meaningless:
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/accessible/src/base/nsAccessibilityService.cpp#1166
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8.1.1? → blocking1.8.1.1+
Comment 15•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #14)
> >+ *aFrameHint = nsnull;
>
> why we set *aFrameHint null here? does this have anything to do with this bug?
>
that introduced bug 360184
| Assignee | ||
Comment 16•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > >+ *aFrameHint = nsnull;
> >
> > why we set *aFrameHint null here? does this have anything to do with this bug?
> >
> that introduced bug 360184
>
Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize that aFrameHint is |inout| parameter
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/accessible/public/nsIAccessibilityService.idl#82
Comment 17•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 244074 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch
approved for 1.8 branch, a=dveditz for drivers
Attachment #244074 -
Flags: approval1.8.1.1? → approval1.8.1.1+
Keywords: fixed1.8.1.1
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•