Closed Bug 485631 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Get assertion "cannot call GetUsedBorder on a dirty frame not currently being reflowed" during drawing on Fennec

Categories

(Core :: Layout, defect)

ARM
Linux
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: bcombee, Assigned: bzbarsky)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.9.1)

Attachments

(3 files)

While running Fennec from trunk of moz-central, I often get the assertion:

###!!! ASSERTION: cannot call GetUsedBorder on a dirty frame not currently being reflowed: 'nsLayoutUtils::sDisableGetUsedXAssertions || !NS_SUBTREE_DIRTY(this) || (GetStateBits() & NS_FRAME_IN_REFLOW)', file c:/src/mozilla-central/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp, line 616

This usually occurs when part of the page has changed, Stuart suspects its from our DrawWindow code.
Component: General → Layout
OS: Windows Vista → Linux
Product: Fennec → Core
QA Contact: general → layout
Hardware: x86 → ARM
Attached patch Proposed fixSplinter Review
Assignee: nobody → bzbarsky
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #369780 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #369780 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #369780 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #369780 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #369780 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #369780 - Flags: review+
Pushed http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/615c57912892
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite?
Resolution: --- → FIXED
We could use this on 1.9.1 for eventual shipping with Fennec; can this be merged over?
Comment on attachment 369780 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed fix

If it gets approved, sure.

Drivers: this is a safe patch to just disable an assert in some cases.
Attachment #369780 - Flags: approval1.9.1?
So why is it ok to disable the assertions in this case?  (Is there some flag to drawWindow that says to do it without flushing?  Should we disable them only in that case?)
Yes, there is such a flag, and fennec is using it.  We could make the disabling conditional on that flag, sure; it'd involve passing it down to this code.  Would you prefer that?
I think I would.  That's why we're hitting this in the first place, right?
OK, reopening to get that change made.  I'll put up a followup patch for it, then land both on the branch if/when it gets approval.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Attached patch Like so, saySplinter Review
Attachment #371707 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #371707 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #371707 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #371707 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #371707 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #371707 - Flags: review+
Pushed http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bfb03680c56d
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Attachment #371707 - Flags: approval1.9.1?
Comment on attachment 369780 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed fix

a1.9.1=dbaron
Attachment #369780 - Flags: approval1.9.1? → approval1.9.1+
Comment on attachment 371707 [details] [diff] [review]
Like so, say

a1.9.1=dbaron
Attachment #371707 - Flags: approval1.9.1? → approval1.9.1+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: