Re: Does Emacs wm-window handling misbehave?

["Jan Djärv" <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>]

Mathias Dahl skrev:
>>  Do you have click-to-focus?
> 
> I can focus/select and raise wm-windows by clicking them if that is
> what you ask.
> 
> This is strange, because Emacs only sends
>>  _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW when x-focus-frame is called.
>>  We did have an issue with timestamps, but that should have been fixed some
>>  time ago.
> 
>> Can you explicitly call x-focus-frame and at the same time do a
>>  tail -f on .xsession-errors and see if the above message comes up?
> 
> Interesting. After I have evaluated the following expression in Emacs
> I get the problem right away:
> 
>   (x-focus-frame (selected-frame))
> 
> I need to minimize Emacs using M-z or click some other windows to get
> it to behave normally again.
> 

I tried this on Ubuntu 7.10 with metacity but did not get any error.  You can
check if the timestamp Emacs sends corresponds to one of those in the error
message by printing it out in the function x_ewmh_activate_frame in xterm.c
(i.e. printf("%u\n", last_user_time); ).  However, that function is not called
unless you call x-focus-frame.

> That call itself does not generate any new messages in
> .xsession-errors. However, after clicking around a bit, switching to
> FireFox writing this e-mail for example, I see this:
> 
> Window manager warning: last_focus_time (262538802) is greater than
> comparison timestamp (4020640236).  This most likely represents a
> buggy client sending inaccurate timestamps in messages such as
> _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW.  Trying to work around...

It actually don't make sense, as 262538802 is not greater than 4020640236.

You might have the same problem as the bug
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=392889.  There is a lot of
discussion in the beginning but the hang bug is discussed at the end.

And then there is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224611, but it
doesn't sound like that one.

It is strange that I can't reproduce the problem, I have the same system as
you.  It must be something in the configuration that triggers this bug.

> Window manager warning: last_user_time (262538802) is greater than
> comparison timestamp (4020640236).  This most likely represents a
> buggy client sending inaccurate timestamps in messages such as
> _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW.  Trying to work around...
> Window manager warning: 0x40000a4 (emacs - ma) appears to be one of
> the offending windows with a timestamp of 262538802.  Working
> around...
> 
> As you can see, again an Emacs window is mentioned.

Can you configrm that the window id belongs to Emacs?

	Jan D.