From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: sand@blarg.net Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 23.0.60; Heavy display problems with new font backend Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:23:49 -0700 Message-ID: <18460.40869.171854.738262@priss.frightenedpiglet.com> References: <87hcdy6srx.fsf@baldur.tsdh.de> <4809F8AC.8000802@gnu.org> <87skxgbtlm.fsf@localhorst.mine.nu> <18445.25224.874018.531866@priss.frightenedpiglet.com> <874p9uw77k.fsf@localhorst.mine.nu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1209835454 27560 80.91.229.12 (3 May 2008 17:24:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 17:24:14 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 03 19:24:48 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JsLTb-0006g8-4I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 May 2008 19:24:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33852 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JsLSt-0007cC-Kq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 May 2008 13:24:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JsLSo-0007a9-D9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2008 13:23:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JsLSm-0007Y6-W9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2008 13:23:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33548 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JsLSm-0007Xq-RM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2008 13:23:56 -0400 Original-Received: from v-static-143-234.avvanta.com ([206.124.143.234] helo=priss.frightenedpiglet.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JsLSm-0008Jm-6Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2008 13:23:56 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 25339 invoked by uid 1000); 3 May 2008 17:23:49 -0000 In-Reply-To: <874p9uw77k.fsf@localhorst.mine.nu> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.9 under Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) X-URL: http://home.blarg.net/~sand X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:96380 Archived-At: David Hansen writes: > > A fellow Neep Alt-er! Have you also tried the Neep Alt ISO10646-1 > > registry fonts from Debian's xfonts-jmk package? When I use the > > ISO10646 fonts with the new font backend, Emacs seems to think that > > the font is missing large quantities of codepoints. Left and right > > quotes, for example, show up using double-width Chinese fonts. I'm > > curious whether other people see the same thing. > > I noticed that problem not only with the neep font but also with Monaco > and the fairly complete DejaVu Mono font. I even reported it as a bug, > but it may be possible that this is some limited understanding of > dealing with fontsets on my side. > > It may be worth a look how rxvt selects fonts. When looking at the > unicode test file it looks far better in urxvt, no matter which font I > specify as the default. I traced the fonts being sent to ftfont_has_char() and discovered that for a letter like LATIN SMALL LETTER S ACUTE (#x15b), Emacs was asking about the Neep Alt family as expected, but only about fonts with the iso8859-1 registry/encoding within that family. When I removed the iso8859-1 fonts entirely from the font path and HUPed the font server, Emacs started asking about the iso10646-1 registry/encoding fonts, and those *were* found and displayed correctly. (On the other hand, the mode line's file name---and just the mode line's file name---dropped down to a different font.) So: 1. It looks like Emacs has a problem determining the right registry to use for certain code points, or the font picking fallback code has problems. 2. The file name display code may not be correctly integrated with the new font backend. At this point I think I need to get more familiar with the contents of etc/DEBUG... Derek -- Derek Upham sand@blarg.net