bug#27923: 24.3; -iconic switch screws up geometry

[Geoff Kuenning <geoff@cs.hmc.edu>]

>> But just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, in 
>> all of
>> these cases emacs is coming up with a correct window size after 
>> I
>> deiconify it.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.  Correct in the 
> sense that
> the main window displays 80x78 characters?

Yes, that's right.  Whenever I refer to "works right" I mean that 
if I launch with -iconic and then de-iconify, I get a window 
that's the size I expect.

>> Hmmm, though...I just discovered that "emacs -Q --iconic" 
>> produces a
>> different result: it creates an 80x35 frame (79x34 according to
>> xwininfo) even when my xrdb contains both an Emacs.geometry of
>> 80x78+100+0 and a slightly conflicting gnuemacs.geometry of
>> 80x78+1180+0.  (I have no clue why I have both!)  This implies 
>> that
>> there's something in my .emacs that's relevant.
>
> You mean there's something in your .emacs that gets you a 
> different
> height: 80/79 without loading .emacs and 35/34 with loading 
> .emacs?

I didn't identify the source of the problem, but yes.

BTW, that email was a bit of a stream of consciousness: I was 
typing it as I was doing experiments and being interrupted over 
the course of a few hours.

>
>> area.  However, in the process I discovered that there must be 
>> a race,
>> because on a hunch I tried launching twice with no change in my
>> .emacs, and once was OK and once produced the narrow window.
>
> I'm confused now - is the 35/34 above the width or the height of 
> the
> frame?

Sorry, bad typing on my part.  35/34 was the height.

>> Anyway, I finally got down to the following two lines:
>>
>> (menu-bar-mode -1)
>> (set-default-font (x-get-resource "Font" ""))
>
>> With both of those present, I get the absurdly narrow frame. 
>> If I
>> remove the first, then I get a frame that's 38x78.  If I leave 
>> the
>> first and remove the second, I get a teeny frame that's too 
>> small to
>> type in, but xwininfo reports it as 1x1 (so suppose emacs 
>> thinks it's
>> 2x2).  And if I remove both, I get a properly sized frame. 
>> (This is
>> all with my xrdb restored, BTW.)
>
> Sounds weird.  BTW what does evaluating (x-get-resource "Font" 
> "")
> return?

I'll give that a shot tomorrow.

>> But that's not the strangest part.  I cut my .emacs down to 
>> JUST those
>> two lines, and things then worked fine.  More testing 
>> eventually gave me
>> the following .emacs file (this is 100% of the contents):
>>
>> (if nil
>>     (setq load-path (append
>>                      (mapcar
>>                       '(lambda (value)
>>                          (if (and (stringp value)
>>                                   (not (string-match 
>>                                   "^/usr/local/" value))
>>                                   (string-match "^/usr/" 
>>                                   value))
>>                              (replace-match "/usr/local/" t t 
>>                              value)
>>                            value))
>>                        load-path)
>>                      load-path)))
>> (menu-bar-mode -1)
>> (set-default-font (x-get-resource "Font" ""))
>>
>> Obviously, the first bit of code doesn't get executed.  But if 
>> I remove
>> it, launching in iconic mode works!  Having it there makes 
>> stuff break.
>>
>> Note that the .emacs above is 532 bytes.  Is there an ancient 
>> 512-byte
>> buffer somewhere?  I tried replacing the "if nil" part with 512
>> semicolons, but that didn't produce an error.
>
> We occasionally use(d) a 512 byte limit to search for the 
> occurrence of
> something in a file but I see no connection to your case.
>
>> Color me confused...
>
> Maybe the best thing to do at this moment is that you try with a 
> later
> version of Emacs, 25.3 at least.  My GNU/Linux machine crashed a 
> few
> years ago and I still did not restore my older Emacs versions 
> including
> that of Emacs 24.  Also, on Windows the --iconic switch did not 
> even
> work with Emacs 24, so maybe in this area something has changed 
> on
> GNU/Linux as well.  If you upgrade, we could try to synchronize 
> our
> observations better.  Note that on GNU/Linux it's already an 
> enormous
> pain to compare the behavior of the same version of Emacs under 
> two
> different window managers.

It may not happen until the Christmas break, but I'm sure I can 
manage to get the latest version installed.  It would be wonderful 
if the bug went away on its own!
-- 
    Geoff Kuenning   geoff@cs.hmc.edu 
    http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~geoff/

Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very;" your
editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should 
be.
	-- Mark Twain