Closed
Bug 624109
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Startup crash in gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice with iZ3D
Categories
(Core :: Graphics, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla12
People
(Reporter: scoobidiver, Assigned: bas.schouten)
Details
(Keywords: crash, topcrash, Whiteboard: startupcrash)
Crash Data
Attachments
(1 file)
1.28 KB,
patch
|
joe
:
review-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
It is a bug similar to bug 612264 and bug 607075.
It happens rarely.
Signature gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice(int)
UUID 1d0cee11-058c-4fe4-8e5f-4f5d62110108
Time 2011-01-08 00:02:27.245894
Uptime 6
Last Crash 318 seconds (5.3 minutes) before submission
Install Age 444 seconds (7.4 minutes) since version was first installed.
Product Firefox
Version 4.0b9pre
Build ID 20110107030356
Branch 2.0
OS Windows NT
OS Version 6.0.6001 Service Pack 2
CPU x86
CPU Info GenuineIntel family 6 model 15 stepping 13
Crash Reason EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION_WRITE
Crash Address 0x6ba06385
App Notes AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0405
Frame Module Signature [Expand] Source
0 xul.dll gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice gfx/thebes/gfxWindowsPlatform.cpp:398
1 xul.dll gfxWindowsPlatform::UpdateRenderMode
2 xul.dll gfxWindowsPlatform::gfxWindowsPlatform gfx/thebes/gfxWindowsPlatform.cpp:219
3 mozalloc.dll mozalloc.dll@0x106f
4 xul.dll nsComponentManagerImpl::KnownModule::Load xpcom/components/nsComponentManager.cpp:973
5 xul.dll nsFactoryEntry::GetFactory xpcom/components/nsComponentManager.cpp:1948
6 xul.dll nsComponentManagerImpl::CreateInstance xpcom/components/nsComponentManager.cpp:1225
7 xul.dll CallCreateInstance obj-firefox/xpcom/build/nsComponentManagerUtils.cpp:157
8 xul.dll nsBaseWidget::BaseCreate widget/src/xpwidgets/nsBaseWidget.cpp:215
9 xul.dll nsWindow::Create widget/src/windows/nsWindow.cpp:559
10 xul.dll nsWebShellWindow::Initialize xpfe/appshell/src/nsWebShellWindow.cpp:219
11 xul.dll nsAppShellService::JustCreateTopWindow xpfe/appshell/src/nsAppShellService.cpp:433
12 xul.dll nsAppShellService::CreateHiddenWindow xpfe/appshell/src/nsAppShellService.cpp:182
13 xul.dll nsAppStartup::CreateHiddenWindow toolkit/components/startup/src/nsAppStartup.cpp:160
14 xul.dll XRE_main toolkit/xre/nsAppRunner.cpp:3623
15 firefox.exe wmain toolkit/xre/nsWindowsWMain.cpp:128
16 firefox.exe __tmainCRTStartup obj-firefox/memory/jemalloc/crtsrc/crtexe.c:591
17 kernel32.dll BaseThreadInitThunk
18 ntdll.dll __RtlUserThreadStart
19 ntdll.dll _RtlUserThreadStart
More reports at:
http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?product=Firefox&query_search=signature&query_type=exact&query=&range_value=4&range_unit=weeks&hang_type=any&process_type=any&plugin_field=&plugin_query_type=&plugin_query=&do_query=1&admin=&signature=gfxWindowsPlatform%3A%3AVerifyD2DDevice%28int%29
Updated•14 years ago
|
Crash Signature: [@ gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice(int) ]
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
It still happens in 8.0b1:
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?signature=gfxWindowsPlatform%3A%3AVerifyD2DDevice%28int%29
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
It happens with one or two GPUs.
Stack traces are now less buggy:
0 xul.dll gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice gfx/thebes/gfxWindowsPlatform.cpp:340
1 xul.dll gfxWindowsPlatform::UpdateRenderMode
2 xul.dll gfxWindowsPlatform::gfxWindowsPlatform gfx/thebes/gfxWindowsPlatform.cpp:193
3 xul.dll gfxPlatform::Init gfx/thebes/gfxPlatform.cpp:268
4 xul.dll gfxPlatform::GetPlatform gfx/thebes/gfxPlatform.cpp:233
5 xul.dll ShouldUseImageSurfaces modules/libpr0n/src/imgFrame.cpp:113
6 xul.dll imgFrame::Init modules/libpr0n/src/imgFrame.cpp:198
7 xul.dll mozilla::imagelib::RasterImage::InternalAddFrame modules/libpr0n/src/RasterImage.cpp:851
8 xul.dll mozilla::imagelib::RasterImage::EnsureFrame modules/libpr0n/src/RasterImage.cpp:989
9 xul.dll mozilla::imagelib::nsGIFDecoder2::BeginImageFrame modules/libpr0n/decoders/nsGIFDecoder2.cpp:228
10 xul.dll mozilla::imagelib::nsGIFDecoder2::WriteInternal modules/libpr0n/decoders/nsGIFDecoder2.cpp:956
11 xul.dll mozilla::imagelib::RasterImage::WriteToDecoder modules/libpr0n/src/RasterImage.cpp:2284
12 xul.dll mozilla::imagelib::RasterImage::AddSourceData modules/libpr0n/src/RasterImage.cpp:1254
13 xul.dll mozilla::imagelib::RasterImage::WriteToRasterImage modules/libpr0n/src/RasterImage.cpp:2822
14 xul.dll nsPipeInputStream::ReadSegments xpcom/io/nsPipe3.cpp:799
15 xul.dll imgRequest::OnDataAvailable modules/libpr0n/src/imgRequest.cpp:1177
16 xul.dll ProxyListener::OnDataAvailable modules/libpr0n/src/imgLoader.cpp:2101
17 xul.dll nsJARChannel::OnDataAvailable modules/libjar/nsJARChannel.cpp:934
18 xul.dll nsInputStreamPump::OnStateTransfer netwerk/base/src/nsInputStreamPump.cpp:510
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
For the new stack that's an interesting crash, line 340 suggests this factory creation failed. This probably happens on some odd combination of circumstances. The comments seem to be non-English languages so I wonder if that's related.
We could alleviate the latter stack trace probably just by not ignoring the result of the create factory call and bailing out on failure.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
It's now #9 top crasher in 8.0.
It's correlated to the iZ3D driver (http://www.iz3d.com/):
100% (657/659) vs. 1% (708/95929) S3DInjector.dll
16% (105/659) vs. 0% (107/95929) 1.0.151.3131
9% (58/659) vs. 0% (58/95929) 1.0.151.3154
51% (339/659) vs. 0% (351/95929) 1.0.151.3214
1% (4/659) vs. 0% (4/95929) 1.0.151.3332
1% (8/659) vs. 0% (8/95929) 1.0.151.3382
1% (5/659) vs. 0% (5/95929) 1.0.151.3563
19% (124/659) vs. 0% (132/95929) 1.0.151.3659
1% (8/659) vs. 0% (8/95929) 1.0.151.3907
1% (6/659) vs. 0% (25/95929) 1.0.151.4016
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
So this is not new but much higher for 8.0. Is there something we should be doing here? Was some new driver released that is causing these crashes?
Reporter | ||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Crash Signature: [@ gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice(int) ] → [@ gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice(int) ]
[@ gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice(bool) ]
Summary: Startup crash [@ gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice(int) ] → Startup crash in gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice
Reporter | ||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Summary: Startup crash in gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice → Startup crash in gfxWindowsPlatform::VerifyD2DDevice with iZ3D
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
Bas, let's do what you suggested in comment 3 and bail out on failure.
Assignee: nobody → bas.schouten
Comment 7•13 years ago
|
||
Sitting in the #31 spot for FF8.0.1 and it's a start-up crash. It's a bit lower on the list for 8.0.
Keywords: topcrash
Updated•13 years ago
|
Whiteboard: startupcrash
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•13 years ago
|
||
Attachment #588385 -
Flags: review?(joe)
Comment 9•13 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 588385 [details] [diff] [review]
Deal with DXGI factory creation failure
Why not just if (FAILED(hr))?
(Feel free to reflag if there's a reason.)
Attachment #588385 -
Flags: review?(joe) → review-
Comment 10•13 years ago
|
||
Maybe you meant to write "if (FAILED(hr) || !factory1)"?
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•13 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 588385 [details] [diff] [review]
Deal with DXGI factory creation failure
Review of attachment 588385 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That is what I meant to write! Sorry :(
Attachment #588385 -
Flags: review- → review?(joe)
Comment 12•13 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 588385 [details] [diff] [review]
Deal with DXGI factory creation failure
Review of attachment 588385 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What did you mean to write? What I wrote, or what is in this patch?
If you meant to write what's in this patch, how about you just say if (FAILED(hr)) { return; } ?
Attachment #588385 -
Flags: review?(joe) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Joe Drew (:JOEDREW!) from comment #12)
> Comment on attachment 588385 [details] [diff] [review]
> Deal with DXGI factory creation failure
>
> Review of attachment 588385 [details] [diff] [review]:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What did you mean to write? What I wrote, or what is in this patch?
>
> If you meant to write what's in this patch, how about you just say if
> (FAILED(hr)) { return; } ?
I meant to write what you wrote. Do you want me to upload a new patch? :P
Comment 14•13 years ago
|
||
consider this comment an r+ on that changed patch
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•13 years ago
|
||
Comment 16•13 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla12
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•