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#19482: Changing to big font cause display problem Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:30:43 +0100 Message-ID: <54F02B33.5000408@gmx.at> References: <7294F8DD-9324-4872-9AAA-5E4A229EFD04@icloud.com> <54E49C26.1070209@gmx.at> <0534A31D-5D69-4687-88CE-FA3C23A20278@icloud.com> <54E58941.3030005@gmx.at> <0255489D-9FE7-4C96-850D-2ED2FC80E42B@icloud.com> <54E77B3E.4000907@gmx.at> <1C7DF283-CB55-4360-AC5B-7565305D85F8@icloud.com> <54E86FA3.6010902@gmx.at> <54E9A8CB.8070605@gmx.at> <3EDF6985-A93A-46E9-9083-C2E496AB98C1@icloud.com> <24726EFE-F45F-4F6C-8941-AA1E5457D14F@swipnet.se> <54EA0D77.7010009@gmx.at> <504DD3FF-BA56-4407-AFE6-CCAA9F90BB31@swipnet.se> <54EA2570.8090504@gmx.at> <54EAC726.8090208@swipnet.se> <7F209FD7-19DD-4F47-A8BF-98E88EC65FCB@swipnet.se> <54ED7B0F.2070101@gmx.at> <54ED93C5.7020307@swipnet.se> <54EDA4E1.2060304@gmx.at> <54EE0767.1090407@gmx.at> <384E8844-0873-4204-89D0-A120E94683C9@swipnet.se> <866CADAE-2B20-42FF-BCAB-E5D9DFAA4AFD@swipnet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1425025947 25099 80.91.229.3 (27 Feb 2015 08:32:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 19482@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Jan D." Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 27 09:32:13 2015 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 1YRGLF-0003Xu-9T for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:32:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34549 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YRGLE-0005z6-LL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:32:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55182) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YRGL9-0005sw-AV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:32:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YRGL4-0003NP-Bu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:32:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:55635) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YRGL4-0003NL-9Z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:32:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YRGL3-0000p4-Iz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:32:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:32:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19482 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 19482-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19482.14250258703078 (code B ref 19482); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:32:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19482) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2015 08:31:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59233 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YRGKD-0000na-Hk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:31:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:63396) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YRGKB-0000n2-Ch for 19482@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:31:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [194.118.143.137] ([194.118.143.137]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MBrCt-1YKM1a1RNn-00Ajx0; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:30:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <866CADAE-2B20-42FF-BCAB-E5D9DFAA4AFD@swipnet.se> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:pLcHqYZyq81crUmX/+Jv2w0Ad4/rvk/KWw3JmtXqvRSbeBnT7gF mXBH7JBkVrdM/f4fjc7sBmUeedjGuXMn5FaCFfQrvUZ1gsbpIQ6Rtk88uoMC7aMD9Bb/M8a qBJ1/O3haZqRIwDW2v8iq9/wvB8EEaUDG2t+zW9JLaPg2i+U0pTJnHqgynTUOk2b3PtxzDd 4fRi9sDVGg+6nU/oGDUow== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; 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:99864 Archived-At: > I redid the whole INNER_TO_OUTER thing, and now handle all sides. > The macros INNER_TO_OUTER are removed. Thanks. I'm a bit lost currently because there seem to be problems here, at least with my GTK+3 build on the Xfce desktop. I've tried to debug x_real_pos_and_offsets with emacs -Q but still am not able to find out what's wrong. Maybe you can help with the following two issues. (1) `x-frame-geometry' reports an external border width of zero for a normal, non-maximized frame. That's clearly wrong, the width is 5 pixels. I have no idea how to track down what XGetWindowAttributes retrieves here. (2) `x-frame-geometry' reports a title height of 5. This is wrong - the title height is 20 pixels. I don't yet understand how x_real_pos_and_offsets works but I strongly suppose that if (top_offset_y) *top_offset_y = -outer_x; should be if (top_offset_y) *top_offset_y = -outer_y; at least. Also, these two assignments outer_width = FRAME_PIXEL_WIDTH (f) + 2 * border + right_off + left_off; outer_height = FRAME_PIXEL_HEIGHT (f) + 2 * border + top_off + bottom_off; should _not_ use FRAME_PIXEL_HEIGHT and FRAME_PIXEL_WIDTH because that would mean that I counter-check our calculations of frame sizes from these calculations. What we should use here are the 'width' and 'height' attributes as returned by XWindowAttributes. I haven't checked yet but do we conceptually assume that FRAME_PIXEL_WIDTH (f) == atts.width FRAME_PIXEL_HEIGHT (f) == atts.height Or does something additionally come into play here? Thanks, martin