"ASSERTION: Backuping up twice; this should never be necessary" with floats and vertical scrollbar

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

Core
Layout
RESOLVED FIXED
11 years ago
10 years ago

People

(Reporter: Jesse Ruderman, Assigned: roc)

Tracking

(Blocks: 1 bug, {assertion, testcase})

Trunk
x86
Mac OS X
assertion, testcase
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite +

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

11 years ago
Created attachment 253904 [details]
testcase

Loading the testcase triggers:

###!!! ASSERTION: Backuping up twice; this should never be necessary: '!forceBreakInContent', file /Users/jruderman/trunk/mozilla/layout/generic/nsBlockFrame.cpp, line 3074

This assertion was added in bug 343445.

http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/1892
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Blocks: 369230
Flags: blocking1.9?
Created attachment 254382 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

There are two parts to this fix:

1) The text frame "  A  " wants to try to place the following <span> after itself, just in case the span collapses completely into the text frame's trailing whitespace, even though the text frame's trailing soft break is beyond the available width. We need to fail to place the span and back up to the text frame's soft break. Problem is that up till now we haven't allowed potential breaks to be registered beyond the available width. This patch alters that, allowing us to record a break opportunity beyond the available width if there isn't already a (better) one recorded.

2) nsLineLayout::ClearOptionalBreakPosition needs to clear out the NEEDBACKUP flag so that nsBlockFrame::DoReflowInlineFrames doesn't assert, thinking that backup is required more often that it is.
Assignee: nobody → roc
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #254382 - Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #254382 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Comment on attachment 254382 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

r+sr=dbaron.

Please also change the assertion text from "Backuping up" to "Backing up".
Attachment #254382 - Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #254382 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #254382 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #254382 - Flags: review+
checked in.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Flags: blocking1.9? → in-testsuite?
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Updated

11 years ago
Depends on: 375827
No longer depends on: 375827
(Reporter)

Comment 4

10 years ago
Crashtest checked in.
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.