Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Pip Cet <pipcet@gmail.com>
>> Cc: dfussner@googlemail.com,  41645@debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 20:23:47 +0000
>> 
>> diff --git a/src/xdisp.c b/src/xdisp.c
>> index 0f06a38d40..414dc8809b 100644
>> --- a/src/xdisp.c
>> +++ b/src/xdisp.c
>> @@ -30592,6 +30592,12 @@ gui_produce_glyphs (struct it *it)
>>  	it->glyph_row->contains_overlapping_glyphs_p = true;
>>  
>>        it->pixel_width = cmp->pixel_width;
>> +      if (it->pixel_width == 0)
>> +	{
>> +	  /* We assure that all visible glyphs have at least 1-pixel
>> +	     width.  */
>> +	  it->pixel_width = 1;
>> +	}
>>        it->ascent = it->phys_ascent = cmp->ascent;
>>        it->descent = it->phys_descent = cmp->descent;
>>        IT_APPLY_FACE_BOX(it, face);
>> @@ -30623,6 +30629,12 @@ gui_produce_glyphs (struct it *it)
>>        it->pixel_width
>>  	= composition_gstring_width (gstring, it->cmp_it.from, it->cmp_it.to,
>>  				     &metrics);
>> +      if (it->pixel_width == 0)
>> +	{
>> +	  /* We assure that all visible glyphs have at least 1-pixel
>> +	     width.  */
>> +	  it->pixel_width = 1;
>> +	}
>>        if (it->glyph_row
>>  	  && (metrics.lbearing < 0 || metrics.rbearing > metrics.width))
>>  	it->glyph_row->contains_overlapping_glyphs_p = true;
>
> I like this less than your original proposal.

Okay, so do I. I'd misunderstoond your previous comment, then.

> Artificially "fixing"
> the pixel width of a glyph without changing anything else might get us
> in trouble, since the font glyph is still zero-width and its other
> metrics are incompatible with this "fixed" value.
>
> Why did you prefer this to the original proposal, which was to set the
> font_not_found_p flag?

Is this any better? I'm not sure what to do about static compositions,
to be honest, so maybe we shouldn't touch those at all. What do you think?