From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Barry OReilly Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:59:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: <52F601AE.5040309@binary-island.eu> <87k3bj40nu.fsf@cougar.home.aneadesign.com> <83wqfiz36v.fsf@gnu.org> <5331D45B.7090704@binary-island.eu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c6607b215604f5abf2ab X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396018822 4801 80.91.229.3 (28 Mar 2014 15:00:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:00:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Clemens =?UTF-8?Q?Sch=C3=BCller?= , 16694@debbugs.gnu.org To: Matthias Dahl Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 28 16:00:27 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 1WTYGd-0004KK-OD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:00:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34052 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYGd-0006qk-9X for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:00:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51701) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYGS-0006cK-Sw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:00:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYGK-0008Vr-Tu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:00:12 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53805) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYGK-0008VY-RQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYGK-0006gu-2i for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:00:04 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Barry OReilly Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:00:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16694 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 16694-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16694.139601876725634 (code B ref 16694); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:00:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16694) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Mar 2014 14:59:27 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54984 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYFi-0006fN-Gk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:59:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]:43488) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYFg-0006fA-20 for 16694@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:59:24 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uy5so6049195obc.6 for <16694@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:59:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cmw61OjEmpZCtTB/kSTPPKNgBDHZu1vgOvlSAkzEdCc=; b=xGP5uEMDDkEB3VLL9IfJnH7t3ziRURWdFwqEzEW2mrTw0V0/XkkZoaQw6QmUfeZ7ru 5nM9gFkFzQ2hMmuy/wnsHaANzUU+LhuVgFWRsy3a5sb4i5S+ua3dF4lXhuRKF7FhMLbW HDWFZ0U/I+tmC7urxGdeKSxUjhOMLbqzlhAVnMTCreCJcaNYcnlOhsrvce0MNZ/ZyLhM DmKPQd0TgBvwe8m4ZijpDmvu9y2GOeYhzkJDi9ycfo6eGuKPTQcYcc4rNTPEq7e7r8gF qLSRvhPYFdcISdXKM7w2uLXZMdVVeoxkvrJrCtumjzT81qx8h+9w5qJup0+h//5z/8K3 dcyQ== X-Received: by 10.182.250.200 with SMTP id ze8mr666487obc.72.1396018763187; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.6.44 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:59:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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:87485 Archived-At: --089e0160c6607b215604f5abf2ab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The last patch I indicated is my best guess safe patch that solves the --reverse-video symptom I care about. To summarize my rationale: an unconditional call to make-face-x-resource-internal was moved down into face-spec-recalc, but at least one other caller of face-spec-recalc clearly doesn't want an unconditional call to make-face-x-resource-internal. Moving the make-face-x-resource-internal call back up one call level to the caller which the offending patch touched thus seems right. Matthias, in your patch, that same make-face-x-resource-internal call was moved to an earlier line in the same face-spec-recalc function, so it's not obvious how to reconcile your patch with mine. The concern I raised applies equally to your patch. Maybe you could give my patch a go to see if it has any effect on your ill symptom. If not, then perhaps you have an idea about reconciling the patches? --089e0160c6607b215604f5abf2ab Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The last patch I indicated is my best guess safe patch tha= t solves the --reverse-video symptom I care about. To summarize my rational= e: an unconditional call to make-face-x-resource-internal was moved down in= to face-spec-recalc, but at least one other caller of face-spec-recalc clea= rly doesn't want an unconditional call to make-face-x-resource-internal= . Moving the make-face-x-resource-internal call back up one call level to t= he caller which the offending patch touched thus seems right.

Matthias, in your patch, that same make-face-x-resource-internal call w= as moved to an earlier line in the same face-spec-recalc function, so it= 9;s not obvious how to reconcile your patch with mine. The concern I raised= applies equally to your patch. Maybe you could give my patch a go to see i= f it has any effect on your ill symptom. If not, then perhaps you have an i= dea about reconciling the patches?

--089e0160c6607b215604f5abf2ab--