> xg_frame_resized, rejected, PS=1328x1260, XS=400x374, DS=664x630

I'm afraid that some mishap has happened here.  The DS=664x630 values
indicate that you've run an older version of the patch where I confused
scaled and unscaled values.  I'm attaching the latest version renamed to
include today's date.  Please retry.

 > Next I'd like to know what you see with
 >>
 >> (let ((frame (make-frame '((visibility . nil)))))
 >>     (make-frame-visible frame))
 >>
 >> and
 >>
 >> (let ((frame (make-frame '((visibility . nil) (menu-bar-lines . 0)))))
 >>     (make-frame-visible frame))
 >>
 >> both with an unpatched Emacs and a patched one.  Here the second frame
 >> appears exactly where the first one is, so we would have to care about
 >> the placement ourselves.
 >>
 >
 > Unpatched Emacs: both expressions create a small second frame in the top
 > left-hand corner of the screen.
 >
 > Patched Emacs: both expressions create a small second frame in the top
 > left-hand corner of the screen that immediately jumps to being the correct
 > size.

I would need a frame size history for one of these to understand why the
frame gets apparently mapped before the last resize.

martin