Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111204 Firefox/11.0a1 ID:20111204031102
100% CPU usage and unresponsive script dialog pops up during page loading - www.eurogamer.net .
See forum( http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=11530307#p11530307 )
Steps to Reproduce:
1 Start Firefox with clean profile
2 Open URL
100% CPU usage
"Unresponsive script dialog" pops up
The page is displayed without "unresponsive script dialog"
Regression window(cahed m-c)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111203 Firefox/11.0a1 ID:20111203031117
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111203 Firefox/11.0a1 ID:20111203122618
Regression window(jm nightly)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0a1) Gecko/20111020 Firefox/10.0a1 ID:20111020073958
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0a1) Gecko/20111021 Firefox/10.0a1 ID:20111021040331
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0a1) Gecko/20111022 Firefox/10.0a1 ID:20111022040331
"Unresponsive script dialog" is as follows:
>A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding.
>You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.
I don't actually get the unresponsive script dialog, but I can tell the browser is unresponsive for a longer period of time than previous versions.
According to Shark, about 60% of the time is in fun_getProperty. Brian, does that ring a bell wrt to removing getFunctionPrivate?
This may be related to bug 710780 (logic bug in fun_getProperty).
Alice, can you retest this now that bug 710780 is fixed? I'm not sure I can reproduce it locally, so it's hard for me to tell if it was fixed.
(In reply to David Mandelin from comment #4)
> Alice, can you retest this now that bug 710780 is fixed? I'm not sure I can
> reproduce it locally, so it's hard for me to tell if it was fixed.
I cannot reproduce problems of Bug 707643 and bug 710780 anymore.
So, I mark this as duplicate.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111220 Firefox/11.0a1 ID:20111220031159
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 710780 ***