From: martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>
To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
Cc: 46827@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
Subject: bug#46827: Broken initial size of GTK3 frame
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 11:02:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c7495814-f998-7311-dea2-7e6f6afc4ca9@gmx.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r1kxvrs2.fsf@gmx.net>
>>>> Interestingly, if I run the gtk build under xfwm4 without its dumpfile
>>>> present, I do sometimes see the frame issue you reported, which
>>>> suggests itʼs a timing issue somewhere.
>>>
>>> Evidence in favor of that suggestion may be the following observations:
>>> I can reliably reproduce the problematic display (on xfwm4-4.14.1 with
>>> GTK+ 3.24.17) with the first invocation below, but not with the second
>>> invocation:
>>
>> Why is this evidence in favor of the above suggestion?
>
> Since sleep-for pauses without redisplay and sit-for pauses after
> redisplay, I thought that points to a possible timing issue.
I meant the "no dump file present issue". How is that related to timing
issues?
>> Both `sleep-for' and `sit-for' with an abismal small argument work here,
>> 0 does not. So the problem still seems that redisplay misses a pending
>> window change. I have no idea why `sleep-for' and `sit-for' behave
>> differently for you though.
I forgot to mention that both, `sleep-for' and `sit-for' with arbitrary
non-zero arguments give a good frame here. Only with a zero argument,
they give a bad frame.
> I also see the problem consistently with (sit-for .01) and (sit-for
> .001) but consistently don't see it with (sit-for .00001) and (sit-for
> .000001). With (sit-for .0001) the problems has appeared on some
> invocations and not on others. With sleep-for I haven't seen the
> problem with .1, .01, .001 or .0001, but with .00001 and .000001 I have
> seen it on some invocations but not on others. With both (sit-for 0)
> and (sleep-for 0) I've seen the problem on some invocations and not seen
> it on others. These observations also suggest to me a timing issue, but
> my understanding of such things is very likely too poor to justify and
> inferences.
These observations quite substantially contradict mine. Why would the
bad frame appear with `sit-for' and _larger_ timeouts? I'd have
expected the contrary. OTOH the `sleep-for' behavior sounds reasonable.
martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-02 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-28 9:31 bug#46827: Broken initial size of GTK3 frame martin rudalics
2021-02-28 18:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-01 8:32 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 9:46 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 8:31 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 10:15 ` Robert Pluim
2021-03-01 12:38 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 13:30 ` Robert Pluim
2021-03-01 13:53 ` Robert Pluim
2021-03-01 18:03 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 18:23 ` Robert Pluim
2021-03-01 18:32 ` Robert Pluim
2021-03-01 19:05 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 19:04 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 20:00 ` Robert Pluim
2021-03-02 8:24 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 19:49 ` Stephen Berman
2021-03-02 8:24 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-02 9:07 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-02 10:11 ` Robert Pluim
2021-03-02 14:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-02 16:07 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-02 16:35 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-03 8:48 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-03 9:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-03 9:40 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-06 11:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-06 19:28 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-02 9:17 ` Stephen Berman
2021-03-02 10:02 ` martin rudalics [this message]
2021-03-01 18:03 ` martin rudalics
2021-03-01 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-01 18:04 ` martin rudalics
2021-04-27 8:23 ` martin rudalics
2021-04-29 16:13 ` Juri Linkov
2021-04-29 17:06 ` martin rudalics
2021-04-29 23:06 ` Juri Linkov
2021-04-30 6:26 ` martin rudalics
2021-04-30 17:12 ` Juri Linkov
2021-04-30 17:37 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-01 20:06 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-02 7:38 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-02 20:46 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-03 7:49 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-03 16:40 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-03 16:51 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-03 17:01 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-03 17:32 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-04 8:07 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-04 21:33 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-05 7:25 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-05 20:34 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-06 7:45 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-07 16:52 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-10 8:23 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-10 20:39 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-11 8:44 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-11 17:49 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-12 8:47 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-12 17:28 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-13 7:54 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-13 16:24 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-14 7:08 ` martin rudalics
2021-05-14 18:10 ` Juri Linkov
2021-05-15 7:56 ` martin rudalics
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c7495814-f998-7311-dea2-7e6f6afc4ca9@gmx.at \
--to=rudalics@gmx.at \
--cc=46827@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=rpluim@gmail.com \
--cc=stephen.berman@gmx.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).