From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17046: 24.3.50; On startup emacs frame has no minibuffer or windows decorations Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:24:25 +0100 Message-ID: <532B4069.80908@gmx.at> References: <87bnx1me40.fsf@capuchin.co.uk> <21290.58790.335300.154622@capuchin.co.uk> <21291.6197.146546.329133@capuchin.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395343519 512 80.91.229.3 (20 Mar 2014 19:25:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:25:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17046@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Marshall To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 20 20:25:27 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiaf-0007Tc-FC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:25:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48929 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiaf-0001we-24 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:25:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33965) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiaU-0001mm-Ec for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:25:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiaN-0004PH-6g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:25:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:41484) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiaN-0004PD-32 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:25:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiaM-0001lb-Q3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:25:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17046 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17046-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17046.13953434806752 (code B ref 17046); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17046) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Mar 2014 19:24:40 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42666 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiZz-0001kq-T9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:24:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:59747) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WQiZy-0001ki-VJ for 17046@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:24:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [188.22.40.199] ([188.22.40.199]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lw2dd-1XBsGv3rTx-017ima; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:24:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:75raAmQoCCLkutHZCxCQMyF0/asJkGnN+JqlONseZBbYLj5wgmt rnbGfPUYJEYKILqwKkfnYeBSWEEm8dkeBjwXKW6oFGjG4nlWTO+d+u8J0hhCZjy5qYwv/LD EEV19FkvrkHB5vGkE6rDYAZ5gZXLrqJTWuj5RltXLQr56s+9CuQIEQqOydE6/pYvX8q3xEz Wj/8ctKHmjXJBmV4oxHNQ== X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:87062 Archived-At: > Martin, do you see something questionable in > the window trees? I see two issues: FRAME 1 > (frameset--mini t) ... > (height . 35) ... > (total-height . 0) FRAME 2 > (frameset--mini t . t) ... > (height . 33) ... > (total-height . 32) Obviously a total-height of 0 for FRAME 1 is broken - it should look like for FRAME 2. Just that a total height of zero shouldn't have any bad consequences - it would get swallowed by `split-window'. And the differences in frameset--mini, are they OK? martin