tb8826536y Stack Signature ntdll.dll + 0x4b007 (0x77fcb007) e096b1f7 Email Address timeless@mac.com Product ID MozillaTrunk Build ID 2002072808 Trigger Time 2002-07-30 15:51:52 Platform Win32 Operating System Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 Module ntdll.dll URL visited going back User Comments Trigger Reason Access violation Source File Name Trigger Line No. Stack Trace ntdll.dll + 0x4b007 (0x77fcb007) MSVCRT.DLL + 0x1089 (0x78001089) MSVCRT.DLL + 0x1026 (0x78001026) nsComponentManager::CreateInstance [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/xpcom/components/nsComponentManagerObsolete.cpp, line 103] nsHTMLContainerFrame::CreateViewForFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/base/src/nsHTMLContainerFrame.cpp, line 563] nsCSSFrameConstructor::FinishBuildingScrollFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 6017] nsCSSFrameConstructor::BuildScrollFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 6131] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrameByDisplayType [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 6285] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrameInternal [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 7410] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 7259] nsCSSFrameConstructor::CreateAnonymousFrames [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 5230] nsCSSFrameConstructor::CreateAnonymousFrames [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 5168] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructHTMLFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 4992] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrameInternal [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 7371] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 7259] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessChildren [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 12345] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructTableCellFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 2915] nsCSSFrameConstructor::TableProcessChild [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 3180] nsCSSFrameConstructor::TableProcessChildren [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 3075] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructTableRowFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 2759] nsCSSFrameConstructor::TableProcessChild [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 3166] nsCSSFrameConstructor::TableProcessChildren [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 3075] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructTableRowGroupFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 2650] nsCSSFrameConstructor::TableProcessChild [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 3160] nsCSSFrameConstructor::TableProcessChildren [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 3075] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructTableFrame [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 2531] nsCSSFrameConstructor::ConstructFrameByDisplayType [c:/builds/seamonkey/mozilla/layout/html/style/src/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 6576] the stack doesn't have a proper bottom, so i'm pretty sure this is a stack overflow.

do you still see this bug ?

i crash in all sorts of ways, crashes like this need to be analyzed based on the code instead of based on whether they're reproducable.

Probably duplicate of a bug about the frame tree depth limiting not being sufficient, or something like that.

dbaron, is bug 323394 what you're thinking of? It's not obvious to me why a bug list would trigger that.

Not really sure. We probably need to do better measurement to figure out what the limits ought to be.