From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#37415: Asserting failure setting frame parameters to non-fixnum values in early-init.el Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 10:08:04 +0200 Message-ID: <4495f73b-7897-3a7c-4880-14a10da30458@gmx.at> References: <83v9tqvrm7.fsf@gnu.org> <9aae1b2e-bb5f-8634-5501-9aaff9f51266@gmx.at> <83imppvl9r.fsf@gnu.org> <14d4a455-254e-fdc2-0b64-791cfb0f7724@gmx.at> <83o8zgtlvq.fsf@gnu.org> <0936d492-c2bc-d4d3-7fcf-272d0fdbe087@gmx.at> <83a7ayss4b.fsf@gnu.org> <7b896377-d546-b428-adba-797ec988c4fa@gmx.at> <83r24aqadz.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="144998"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, 37415@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 22 10:09:34 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iBww1-000bb0-NE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 10:09:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45684 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iBww0-0002B2-D5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 04:09:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58115) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iBwvX-0002Ah-4P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 04:09:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iBwvW-0001u7-50 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 04:09:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52792) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iBwvW-0001u0-0d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 04:09:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iBwvV-00023I-OX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 04:09:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:09:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 37415 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 37415-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B37415.15691397007806 (code B ref 37415); Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:09:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 37415) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Sep 2019 08:08:20 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33380 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iBwup-00021q-Sz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 04:08:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:56061) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iBwun-00021Z-Gc for 37415@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 04:08:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1569139685; bh=9VUcjATIVyVHnQcztm1o1oFC/acKEc1myRaN/7TooSI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=fsSYEerhWuStFoyKX+WxxPbSO98ZKWKxBiTtm++t4Uafl9tFO7AsmBV/Kx8TzBByq xV4nYYeO7y1Q4dVQM3eizaOrNGZWx4SETrrVCVaS0zOaxa1QoiR2Iqt16ISxpW5Xeq xLlW9yRGVbZuhVrQeC2ocWS2ku1jeruuIZfCVSPg= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([212.95.5.90]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MtwYu-1hveRs35zA-00uLrl; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 10:08:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83r24aqadz.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: de-AT X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:hr/QjwqBXJUoKbBWcmIbnCFaQ8qCpaWVZBhi702592BBms4tzyJ GMGqy45uMmGIS4sCo4req88D0G2v64bsx1BIQNZAcChDUHIpWf510jrJ3+sR6YqkgpqNo4m kLGBKf4eKMgOf1FaGfSaM3PuVqaQUwde2gHRLMhLTmZePi8ApM++UDTImNLPC69ZEAb/juA D0BRVKfKUBYs4kqun0MqQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:kxD70Ve6lI0=:PZwBXv2oOkfJTodcSlSWXg eHY54v631ZDVf/OOAWiOmfAc9/1Genvqy/JZizIvsliyB5FIjuR+ni9NZm3mocwaAL4xtlH0a glRpfvkaGwFuAyY8dCo7VD4caOiYvY+kQUSU12H+JdMJDwgRWpCX6H5WHGK/rGe/o1hTKtQX4 cpli6Gzxg7IIqa52Z4sRr7/yLNswchx/l1vi9FKCxKUa6kwRKzIhS63lI+CUSn5c10+xJw7Y4 e0Uu9U4tBkV3EEKSsf8akt72DZi9lbsnm3FEgi0zGNigVvsf7qLYTA9vvnhISRTvNQPSEgyYp xApRJ6SCg6Lczv8mg8GvQEBk2JDN8KKFb3ejyky7ejbMQXhKLWFxyZdOepFSc7nQTPRkBv9fs ZFAg6t3n775GYZt2F5Zcq9uhll+hFOKbjNNb0NAhuyL9EELOQ1fRKPqkZaprXcvhE/uR54TY/ rEQYV3P8erx3Xj8LDX6vKghTRMtiDfH6pdLvkzU3wj963ek0H6DscPsMcTWrexL/IMcLh6wJv U+Bf0I7RmwFlXC0yERTqxUZmKNG9wc6oOa4h6bXD/buAveY3g4S5cF4TybHxZGLXl9/zc7/KM Nlw/c3ZA+gVL4IW4mw6Nn5ABtIphMUWuH6AcVt6neknnpkp324QQn7oC94lZM5RNXfm70R4qU p9C2hgRczjvSukh+IGbmy80xGODwff8gUB4WO5L3W4nJaaZU1alP2aIflflV1Qa6onHDxq8qi O1orVhEeLt+HhevdF2Jblxgtyf+iqSA6mc89GHvjJHkeKDqX7kev/cQbnmQvBmCPL+vtq6yu X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:166893 Archived-At: > Thanks, but I probably should have explain the nature of my confusion > better (and would have done that, should I know you will act upon it > so seriously). Sorry about that. I hope you now better understand why I didn't respond to Juanma's report immediately. There are too many layers at work here. > Here's what confused me in this problem: > > . the FIXNUMP assertion is probably there for a reason; what is that > reason? Which assertion? The one in XFIXNUM? > . how come we don't hit this assertion when the same expression is > in the init file, only in the early-init file? I do hit it here. Unless some sort of bug happens before. For example, when using (left . foo). > . why doesn't the X build hit the same assertion in the same > scenario? The X build sets 'left' only in 'gui_figure_window_size' whereafter it immediately sanitizes it into f->left_pos which is later on used by XCreateWindow. martin