From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RFC: flicker-free double-buffered Emacs under X11 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:31:38 +0300 Message-ID: <83y419rnlh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <9e8ad090-a6a0-c807-95ae-7ec7c3f391cb@dancol.org> <83k2d2rssf.fsf@gnu.org> <831sz9sime.fsf@gnu.org> <83y41hqz94.fsf@gnu.org> <838tte5fzq.fsf@gnu.org> <740d34db48a1e4b711cb1cfa987423c9.squirrel@dancol.org> <831sz1twhn.fsf@gnu.org> <965a0fad-3e19-a72a-694b-558816ae23e0@dancol.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477636365 3228 195.159.176.226 (28 Oct 2016 06:32:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 28 08:32:41 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c00i4-0005PJ-5f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:32:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46958 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c00i6-00039H-MX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 02:32:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c00hV-000397-MK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 02:31:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c00hR-0003jl-Os for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 02:31:37 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c00hR-0003jf-Lb; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 02:31:33 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3639 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c00hQ-00081O-Ru; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 02:31:33 -0400 In-reply-to: <965a0fad-3e19-a72a-694b-558816ae23e0@dancol.org> (message from Daniel Colascione on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:56:41 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208916 Archived-At: > Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Daniel Colascione > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:56:41 -0700 > > why would we ever _want_ to allow redisplay to return > without having redrawn all garbaged frames? The design of redisplay > suggests that a postcondition on redisplay_internal should be that > there's nothing left to draw, at least in the case that we weren't > interrupted by input. Not at that point in the code, which is before update_frame was called. In particular, the place that detects whether input is available is inside update_frame. IOW, redisplay is not going to return there, it is going to call update_frame, which is the last stage of the redisplay cycle: it delivers stuff to the glass as needed.