Closed Bug 588794 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) [@ CSSLoaderImpl::ParseSheet]

Categories

(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect)

1.9.2 Branch
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
status2.0 --- unaffected
blocking1.9.2 --- -
status1.9.2 --- .11-fixed
blocking1.9.1 --- -
status1.9.1 --- .14-fixed

People

(Reporter: MatsPalmgren_bugz, Assigned: MatsPalmgren_bugz)

References

Details

(Keywords: regression, valgrind, Whiteboard: [qa-examined-192] [qa-examined-191])

Attachments

(2 files)

Attached file Valgrind message
Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) [@ CSSLoaderImpl::ParseSheet]

Affects 1.9.2 and 1.9.1, not trunk
Attached patch fixSplinter Review
The typo fix is to make -DDEBUG_TRACEMALLOC_PRESARENA compile.
Attachment #467432 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
This seems like something that could break any chrome style sheets that have a syntax error in the first rule, which could be a problem for some extensions.  Seems like something we should get in to the branch soon.

It's a regression from bug 524223.
blocking1.9.1: --- → ?
blocking1.9.2: --- → ?
This would not block a release, but we would like to fix it as it is a regression. Feel free to nominate for for 3.6.10 and 3.5.13 when it is ready.
blocking1.9.1: ? → -
blocking1.9.2: ? → -
Keywords: regression
Attachment #467432 - Flags: approval1.9.2.10?
Attachment #467432 - Flags: approval1.9.1.13?
Comment on attachment 467432 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

Approved for 1.9.2.10 and 1.9.1.13, a=dveditz for release-drivers
Attachment #467432 - Flags: approval1.9.2.10?
Attachment #467432 - Flags: approval1.9.2.10+
Attachment #467432 - Flags: approval1.9.1.13?
Attachment #467432 - Flags: approval1.9.1.13+
Is there anything for QA to do to verify this on branch?
Whiteboard: [qa-examined-192] [qa-examined-191]
(In reply to comment #7)
> Is there anything for QA to do to verify this on branch?

Probably not, you need a special build (ac_add_options --enable-valgrind)
and then run unit tests under valgrind to see the reported error.

Maybe it's possible to make a testcase based on comment 3, I don't know.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: