From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25851: 25.2; GTK warning when starting Emacs when desktop file has more than one frame Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:09:01 +0200 Message-ID: <83varrn2b6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a89c51qb.fsf@moondust.localdomain> <831suoub86.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgswmi6a.fsf@moondust.localdomain> <83vas0rozb.fsf@gnu.org> <87k28fso3o.fsf@moondust.localdomain> <83o9xrsmrd.fsf@gnu.org> <874lzjsh8t.fsf@moondust.localdomain> <87y3wvqqos.fsf@moondust.localdomain> <83fuj2smzr.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpccmv71.fsf@moondust.localdomain> <87d1e4mq48.fsf@moondust.localdomain> <83innvppz4.fsf@gnu.org> <58B546EE.2030500@gmx.at> <831suipb3r.fsf@gnu.org> <58B5C4A1.6050601@gmx.at> <83shmyno97.fsf@gnu.org> <58B6866B.2040307@gmx.at> <83fuixnf7l.fsf@gnu.org> <58B722AA.4090501@gmx.at> <834lzcok3n.fsf@gnu.org> <58B7FB46.4070203@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488467421 32527 195.159.176.226 (2 Mar 2017 15:10:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nljlistbox2@gmail.com, 25851@debbugs.gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 02 16:10:13 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMo-0007Jd-2x for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:10:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52868 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMu-0003Wx-3e for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:10:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52046) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMn-0003V1-CP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:10:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMk-0002eY-66 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:10:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:38501) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMk-0002e5-32 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:10:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMj-0006OQ-T2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:10:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:10:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25851 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 25851-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25851.148846737224533 (code B ref 25851); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:10:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25851) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Mar 2017 15:09:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36700 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMF-0006Nd-N1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:09:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60633) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSMD-0006NM-7O for 25851@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:09:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSM4-0001Ci-W4 for 25851@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:09:24 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57238) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSM4-0001CR-SL; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:09:20 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1789 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cjSM4-0001FW-0z; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:09:20 -0500 In-reply-to: <58B7FB46.4070203@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:00:22 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:130055 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:00:22 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > CC: nljlistbox2@gmail.com, 25851@debbugs.gnu.org > > > It's legitimate, but what we do as legitimate as well, right? And > > emitting a warning in such use cases will only annoy users, right? > > The doc-string of gtk_window_parse_geometry says > > * Note that for gtk_window_parse_geometry() to work as expected, it has > * to be called when the window has its “final” size, i.e. after calling > * gtk_widget_show_all() on the contents and gtk_window_set_geometry_hints() > * on the window. > > and also > > * Deprecated: 3.20: Geometry handling in GTK is deprecated. > > If this were our doc-string, would you say that calling that function as > we do now is legitimate? > > IIUC we call gtk_window_parse_geometry here because we cannot call > gtk_window_set_geometry_hints at this early stage because of > > /* Don't set size hints during initialization; that apparently leads > to a race condition. See the thread at > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-10/msg00033.html */ > if (NILP (Vafter_init_time) > || !FRAME_GTK_OUTER_WIDGET (f) > || FRAME_PARENT_FRAME (f)) > return; > > Aren't we desperately trying to shoot ourselves in the foot? I'm sorry, I'm confused. Earlier you explained that we do that because users want the ability of placing frames outside of the visible area, so I concluded that the fact we allow that is because we want to cater to such users. Now you seem to be saying that we shouldn't cater to them? How to reconcile these two? Or am I missing something?