From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Redisplay problems? Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:50:55 +0200 Message-ID: <83fvma478w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87ppljg4ti.fsf@kanru-mozilla.corp.tpe1.mozilla.com> <5329C53B.3030008@gmx.at> <532ABA60.7000003@gmx.at> <532B3FFE.5020403@gmx.at> <83eh1w7gkd.fsf@gnu.org> <532BF25B.2070004@gmx.at> <83siqc54nv.fsf@gnu.org> <83bnwz5xu1.fsf@gnu.org> <83vbv64qrc.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395499864 10871 80.91.229.3 (22 Mar 2014 14:51:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, christian@defun.dk, cloos@jhcloos.com, kanru@kanru.info, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 22 15:51:12 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1WRNGP-0006lq-Po for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:51:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57231 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNGP-0004Rm-BD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:51:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36589) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNGJ-0004Re-4R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:51:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNGF-0006kY-0m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:51:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout28.012.net.il ([80.179.55.184]:58733) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNGE-0006kL-Jm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:50:58 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout28.012.net.il by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N2U00700E1RE000@mtaout28.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:50:48 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N2U000OAEKOE180@mtaout28.012.net.il>; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:50:48 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.184 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:170800 Archived-At: > From: Stefan > Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, kanru@kanru.info, christian@defun.dk, cloos@jhcloos.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:56:58 -0400 > > >> > That is only possible if the current matrices of the frame correctly > >> > reflect what should be on the screen, > >> Why wouldn't it? > > Because we stop updating the matrices of iconified and invisible frames. > > That does not affect the validity of current matrices Sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it does. Look inside redisplay_window at all the calls to clear_glyph_matrix, for example: all these will be skipped while the frame is iconified; if they are, the current matrices might be invalid by the time we get to using them, because we should have cleared and recomputed them one or more times. Anyway, I no longer understand the purpose of this discussion. I entered it because I wanted to try to help you understand what you and Martin were unsure about. If I succeeded in that, or if I fail to help you, my job here is done. If there are still specific situations or issues that you'd like to understand better, and you think I can help, please describe those situations/issues in detail, and I will try to respond to that. Otherwise, I don't see any point in exchanging single-sentence arguments that are devoid of any context that I can recognize. Are we still talking about the overall way redisplay works, and how it uses the "garbaged" flag? Or are we talking about redisplay of a deiconified frame? Or maybe we are talking about how iconified frames should be treated within redisplay? Or something else entirely? I really cannot tell. The details of each of these use cases are different, so it is easy to go in circles if we are talking about more than one situation at a time.