Nathaniel van Diepen [:Eeems] Reporter
	Description • 15 years ago

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20091013 Minefield/3.7a1pre (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20091013 Minefield/3.7a1pre (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Animated GIF's are not handled correctly
A ghost of the previous frames are left behind

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.open any page with animated GIFS

Actual Results:  
The GIF's first frame displayed correctly but any frame afterwords was full of garbage left behind by other frames

Expected Results:  
it should have correctly displayed the animated GIF and there should be no garbage left behind from previous frames

	Tyler Downer [He/Him]
	Comment 1 • 15 years ago

I don't see any issue. Please try in a new profile. In the link you gave, there is some shadowing, but it looks like it is meant to be there, for some reason. I went to several other anigifs, and did not see that.

	Nathaniel van Diepen [:Eeems] Reporter
	Comment 2 • 15 years ago

well I get it on any page I go on...there shouldn't actually be any shadowing on that page, due to the fact that they are all black and white...it might be a profile issue, so I'll test that

	Ria Klaassen (not reading all bugmail)
	Comment 3 • 15 years ago

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20091013 Minefield/3.7a1pre

I can indeed reproduce the described behavior. It works fine with Firefox 2 but not with Firefox 3.0 and later.
Works: 2007110713  Fails: 2007110719 
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?module=PhoenixTinderbox&date=explicit&mindate=2007-11-07+11%3A00&maxdate=2007-11-07+20%3A00
so Bug 143046 seems a safe culprit to blame, so I'm sure mr Alfred Kayser can tell you more about it.

	Alfred Kayser Assignee
	Comment 4 • 15 years ago

Confirmed from here. This will require some heavy debugging with the gif code...

	Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]
	Comment 6 • 15 years ago

How can this bug, a regression from 2007, be a duplicate of a bug that regressed last month?

	Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]
	Comment 7 • 15 years ago

Reopening until clarified. If you mean it will be fixed by the same patch then a "depends on" relation is better so it can be independently verified.

	Ria Klaassen (not reading all bugmail)
	Comment 8 • 15 years ago

It looks like there has been a fix between Firefox 3.5 and latest trunk and it broke once more. The problem looks very much the same. Same shadows etc.

	[not reading bugmail]
	Comment 9 • 15 years ago

Might want to check with Bholley and JDrew since decode-on-draw landed some code.

	Alfred Kayser Assignee
	Comment 10 • 15 years ago

The patch for bug 519589 does fix this problem, so hold off any more analysis until verification.

	Alfred Kayser Assignee
	Comment 11 • 15 years ago

Fixed by the patch for bug 519589, and verified by testing the imaged referred to above.

Nathaniel, can you please test and verify that it is now working as it should?

	Worcester12345
	Comment 12 • 14 years ago

(In reply to comment #11)
> Fixed by the patch for bug 519589, and verified by testing the imaged referred
> to above.
> 
> Nathaniel, can you please test and verify that it is now working as it should?

Did this ever happen?