From cdc3077d534622c0361fc89d1b5ebeb2f186af2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "bzbarsky@mit.edu" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:40:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Don't unlink so aggressively.  Bug 398083, r+sr+a=sicking

---
 content/xbl/src/nsXBLPrototypeBinding.cpp | 12 ------------
 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/xbl/src/nsXBLPrototypeBinding.cpp b/content/xbl/src/nsXBLPrototypeBinding.cpp
index f41c948e0f12..df0344674ab6 100644
--- a/content/xbl/src/nsXBLPrototypeBinding.cpp
+++ b/content/xbl/src/nsXBLPrototypeBinding.cpp
@@ -368,20 +368,8 @@ nsXBLPrototypeBinding::Traverse(nsCycleCollectionTraversalCallback &cb) const
 void
 nsXBLPrototypeBinding::Unlink()
 {
-  mBinding = nsnull;
   if (mImplementation)
     mImplementation->Unlink();
-  if (mResources)
-    NS_IF_RELEASE(mResources->mLoader);
-
-  // I'm not sure whether it would be safer to just nuke the tables or to
-  // traverse them with unlinking functions...  or whether we even need to
-  // unlink them.  I think we need to at least clean up mInsertionPointTable
-  // becase it can hold strong refs to nodes in the binding document.
-  delete mInsertionPointTable;
-  mInsertionPointTable = nsnull;
-  delete mInterfaceTable;
-  mInterfaceTable = nsnull;
 }
 
 void