The default bug view has changed. See this FAQ.

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

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

Core
CSS Parsing and Computation
RESOLVED FIXED
7 years ago
7 years ago

People

(Reporter: mats, Assigned: mats)

Tracking

({regression, valgrind})

1.9.2 Branch
regression, valgrind
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(status2.0 unaffected, blocking1.9.2 -, status1.9.2 .11-fixed, blocking1.9.1 -, status1.9.1 .14-fixed)

Details

(Whiteboard: [qa-examined-192] [qa-examined-191])

Attachments

(2 attachments)

(Assignee)

Description

7 years ago
Created attachment 467431 [details]
Valgrind message

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

Affects 1.9.2 and 1.9.1, not trunk
(Assignee)

Comment 1

7 years ago
Created attachment 467432 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

The typo fix is to make -DDEBUG_TRACEMALLOC_PRESARENA compile.
Attachment #467432 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Comment on attachment 467432 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

r=dbaron
Attachment #467432 - Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
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.
Blocks: 524223
blocking1.9.1: --- → ?
blocking1.9.2: --- → ?

Comment 4

7 years ago
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: ? → -
status1.9.1: --- → wanted
status1.9.2: --- → wanted
Keywords: regression
(Assignee)

Updated

7 years ago
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+

Updated

7 years ago
status2.0: --- → unaffected
(Assignee)

Comment 6

7 years ago
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/bc021a2ec6a9
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/2e3179e393e3

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/05acd6e91c43
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 7 years ago
status1.9.1: wanted → .14-fixed
status1.9.2: wanted → .11-fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Is there anything for QA to do to verify this on branch?
Whiteboard: [qa-examined-192] [qa-examined-191]
(Assignee)

Comment 8

7 years ago
(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.