On Sat, 14 Sept 2024 at 15:43, martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:

>
> Just that the "first version" of this patch had another problem: The
> sizes we ask for in gtk_window_resize via outer_height and outer_width
> include tool and menu bars.  The sizes reported by ConfigureNotify are
> those of the native rectangle only.  I hopefully fixed that now.  Please
> try again and tell me the histories you get here for the initial frame
> and the second frame both with and without the menu bar by evaluating
> (frame--size-history).
>

History without menu bar:

Frame size history of #<frame  *Minibuf-1* 0x6220fb2af828>
x_create_frame_1 (5), TS=80x25~>1280x875, NS=80x25~>1296x875,
IS=80x25~>1296x875, MS=32x70 IH IV
gui_figure_window_size (5), TS=1280x875~>1280x1260, TC=80x25~>80x36,
NS=1296x875~>1296x1260, IS=1296x875~>1296x1260, MS=32x70 IH IV
scroll-bar-width (3), NS=1296x1260~>1328x1260, IS=1296x1260~>1328x1260,
MS=160x175
scroll-bar-height (3), MS=160x175
x_create_frame_2 (0), MS=160x175
xg_frame_set_char_size, invisible, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1260, DS=1328x1260
xg_frame_set_char_size (5), MS=32x70 IH IV
x_make_frame_visible
MapNotify, not hidden & not iconified, PS=1328x1260, DS=1328x1260
ConfigureNotify, PS=1328x1260, XS=400x374, DS=1328x1260
xg_frame_resized, rejected, PS=1328x1260, XS=400x374, DS=664x630
tool-bar-lines (2), MS=160x175
xg_frame_set_char_size, visible, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1260, DS=1328x1260
 gvalues, PS=200x187
ConfigureNotify, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1258, DS=1328x1260
xg_frame_resized, rejected, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1258, DS=664x671
set_window_configuration (4), MS=160x175 IH IV

History with menu bar:

Frame size history of #<frame  *Minibuf-1* 0x56319385af48>
x_create_frame_1 (5), TS=80x25~>1280x875, NS=80x25~>1296x875,
IS=80x25~>1296x875, MS=32x70 IH IV
gui_figure_window_size (5), TS=1280x875~>1280x1260, TC=80x25~>80x36,
NS=1296x875~>1296x1260, IS=1296x875~>1296x1260, MS=32x70 IH IV
scroll-bar-width (3), NS=1296x1260~>1328x1260, IS=1296x1260~>1328x1260,
MS=160x175
scroll-bar-height (3), MS=160x175
menu-bar-lines (2), MS=160x175
x_create_frame_2 (0), MS=160x175
xg_frame_set_char_size, invisible, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1260, DS=1328x1260
xg_frame_set_char_size (5), MS=32x70 IH IV
x_make_frame_visible
MapNotify, not hidden & not iconified, PS=1328x1260, DS=1328x1260
ConfigureNotify, PS=1328x1260, XS=400x340, DS=1328x1260
xg_frame_resized, rejected, PS=1328x1260, XS=400x340, DS=664x655
tool-bar-lines (2), MS=160x175
xg_frame_set_char_size, visible, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1260, DS=1328x1260
 gvalues, PS=200x195
ConfigureNotify, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1258, DS=1328x1260
xg_frame_resized, rejected, PS=1328x1260, XS=1328x1258, DS=664x696
set_window_configuration (4), MS=160x175 IH IV

Next I'd like to know what you see with
>
> (let ((frame (make-frame '((visibility . nil)))))
>    (make-frame-visible frame))
>
> and
>
> (let ((frame (make-frame '((visibility . nil) (menu-bar-lines . 0)))))
>    (make-frame-visible frame))
>
> both with an unpatched Emacs and a patched one.  Here the second frame
> appears exactly where the first one is, so we would have to care about
> the placement ourselves.
>

Unpatched Emacs: both expressions create a small second frame in the top
left-hand corner of the screen.

Patched Emacs: both expressions create a small second frame in the top
left-hand corner of the screen that immediately jumps to being the correct
size.

-- 
https://rrt.sc3d.org