From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#16923: 24.3.50; reression: `set-frame-size' loses mode line Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:56:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <> <<04dda5ae-8b70-42f5-ae09-c1d05ebc9297@default>> <<5314DB5D.50709@gmx.at>> <<29b76228-778a-4aea-8fe4-5abedb5b6795@default>> <<531589F3.1050300@gmx.at>> <<70615a8e-3923-40c3-bfbc-af0a305cd6df@default>> <<5316D1B5.8040801@gmx.at>> <> <<53176AF2.9010800@gmx.at>> <> <<53177AEF.9050106@gmx.at>> <<3f31643f-2638-4ada-8dc4-b3069f3a82fc@default>> <<531780D7.6070109@gmx.at>> <<291bd9d5-923f-440a-821a-06f585557e67@default>> <<5318AFD9.4000208@gmx.at>> <<8be91728-fcea-4e74-afff-db6a55b52985@default>> <<5318C478.1090007@gmx.at>> <<0f1c6cae-f9cd-4a2b-a662-bcc4116daafc@default>> <<5318E810.7000705@gmx.at>> <> <<531977B2.8030109@gmx.at>> <> <<531A0655.5040400@gmx.at>> <<5e0232ee-58e3-42a3-8102-e12e8e605b2b@default>> <<531A11BE.5070300@gmx.at>> <<738285f8-0119-49cd-b5b5-7e9607fadff3@default>> <<531ADEBC.9030200@gmx.at>> <<1cb471a0-5db3-4c77-90ff-ed8aa2c9bd0b@default>> <<83lhwkpu87.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1394294235 12418 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2014 15:57:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 15:57:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16923@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 08 16:57:23 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 1WMJco-0008Ls-NQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:57:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41026 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJco-0005Xo-Do for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:57:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60929) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJcd-0004oE-K2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:57:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJcV-0008WF-1s for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:57:11 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:55539) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJcU-0008W9-V9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:57:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJcU-0006ch-E9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:57:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 15:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16923 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 16923-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16923.139429420825435 (code B ref 16923); Sat, 08 Mar 2014 15:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16923) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2014 15:56:48 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56721 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJcF-0006cB-UG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:56:48 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:43413) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJcD-0006c2-Ns for 16923@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:56:46 -0500 Original-Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s28FuhUK011561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 8 Mar 2014 15:56:44 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s28Fugqm023267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Mar 2014 15:56:43 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0018.oracle.com (abhmp0018.oracle.com [141.146.116.24]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s28FugHC027194; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 15:56:42 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83lhwkpu87.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] 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:86659 Archived-At: > Every time Emacs waits for input, it automatically enters redisplay. > So, unless you typed a series of 's' keys faster than Emacs could > process them (which I doubt, since you probably looked at the search > results before pressing the next 's'), each 's' keystroke would account > for one redisplay cycle. If you took your time reading before you > pressed another key, there could be more than one redisplay cycle > between every two 's' keystrokes. That coincides with what I thought. And no, I did not press `s' quickly at all. Similarly, for the test of just doing `M-: (fit-frame)' twice in succession: I can wait as long as we like from one to the next. > > Based on what I say above, I do not see how it could be that either > > a high cadence or a high number of successive `fit-frame' calls could > > be overwhelming redisplay. But I am entirely ignorant about redisplay, > > and I am not very clear about what you are asking here. >=20 > Perhaps Martin meant something other than the redisplay cycle I > described above.