On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, David Cadé wrote:

> My take on the bug:
> I looked at the code of this function, and from what I can gather, the bug 
> seems to be in:
> (substring text 0 (- size postwidth textwidth 1))
> postwidth and textwidth are widths obtained with string-width, that is to say 
> in number of columns, and may not have any relation with the number of 
> characters present in the string text.
> This seems wrong to me. It seems to me that truncate-string-to-width seems to 
> be the function one would want to use in this case.

This patch in attachment makes things work for me.

Stefan, I don't know if you are registered to this bug number, and I 
apologize if you received multiple copies of this mail.

Greetings,

-- 
David