Re: [mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp: Re: silent PC vs. emacs]

["Jan Djärv" <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>]

Richard Stallman skrev:
> Does anyone see a problem with this?
> Can anyone confirm it is correct?
> 

...

>   #endif /* USE_X_TOOLKIT */
> - --- 10818,10857 ----
>   x_process_timeouts (timer)
>        struct atimer *timer;
>   {
> +   BLOCK_INPUT;
>     if (toolkit_scroll_bar_interaction || popup_activated ())
>       {
>         while (XtAppPending (Xt_app_con) & XtIMTimer)
>   	XtAppProcessEvent (Xt_app_con, XtIMTimer);
> !       /* Reactivate the atimer for next time.  */
> !       x_activate_timeout_atimer ();

This won't reactivate the timer because x_timeout_atimer_activated_flag is 1 ...


>       }
> +   else
> +     x_timeout_atimer_activated_flag = 0;
> +   UNBLOCK_INPUT;
> + }
> + 
> + /* Install an asynchronous timer that processes Xt timeout events
> +    every 0.1s as long as either `toolkit_scroll_bar_interaction' or
> +    `popup_activated_flag' (in xmenu.c) is set.  Make sure to call this
> +    function whenever these variables are set.  This is necessary
> +    because some widget sets use timeouts internally, for example the
> +    LessTif menu bar, or the Xaw3d scroll bar.  When Xt timeouts aren't
> +    processed, these widgets don't behave normally.  */
> + 
> + void
> + x_activate_timeout_atimer ()
> + {
> +   BLOCK_INPUT;
> +   if (!x_timeout_atimer_activated_flag)

... so this test will fail.


> +     {
> +       EMACS_TIME interval;
> + 
> +       EMACS_SET_SECS_USECS (interval, 0, 100000);
> +       start_atimer (ATIMER_RELATIVE, interval, x_process_timeouts, 0);
> +       x_timeout_atimer_activated_flag = 1;
> +     }
> +   UNBLOCK_INPUT;
>   }

	Jan D.