From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Debugging window positioning under X11 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:45:14 -0500 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295560191 32420 80.91.229.12 (20 Jan 2011 21:49:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 20 22:49:47 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pg2O1-0004TM-Tc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:49:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38283 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pg2O1-0001Yl-C3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:49:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54032 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pg2Jh-0000N2-Ha for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:45:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pg2Jg-0004f3-6c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:45:17 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:49524 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pg2Jg-0004et-42 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:45:16 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoUGAOc7OE1FpZLq/2dsb2JhbACWOo4adMBXhVAEhG+OOA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,353,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="88746724" Original-Received: from 69-165-146-234.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.165.146.234]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2011 16:45:14 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 5AA9666102; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:45:14 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:134835 Archived-At: Could someone give me some hints where I should try and dig in order to solve some window-positioning problems I have? - seems to only appear with the athena/lucid toolkit, not with gtk. - does not appear with metacity, but does appear with my venerable ctwm. - appears both with the emacs-23 and the trunk code. An old Emacs-22 I have around does not exhibit this problem. The problem: - emacs -Q -g 80x40+0-0 does not show up where I expect it: the frame is a lot lower than planned: I barely get to see the top half. With gtk it's either a bit lower or a bit higher than planned, depending on whether I activate tool-bar-mode, but it's not nearly as wrong as with athena/lucid. - with 80x30+0-0 I barely see the top of the frame. - with 80x29+0-0 (or anything below 30), it gets placed at +0+0, probably because ctwm tells itself "wow, it's outside the screen, let's ignore the specified geometry". - looking at the x-dimension position of the frame, it looks like the distance between the top and the frame's position is about twice what it should be (e.g. when the -0 corresponds to +197 the frame's placed at +450, when the -0 corresponds to +347, it ends up at +750 instead, and when -0 corresponds to +497 it ends up at +1034). - after moving my minibuffer frame to where I like it to be, the frame params still say (top . 0) (left . 0). - when I run emacsclient, which opens a new frame, the minibuffer frame jumps back to +0+0. Does this ring a bell for someone? Any hint where I should start digging? Stefan