From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#16028: 24.3.50; Latest build completely breaks my thumnail frames code Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:10:15 +0100 Message-ID: <52A9FC07.7040304@gmx.at> References: <746cd4cb-c69d-4cff-8dee-f7ccde3cb2f4@default> <52A1E5A6.3010901@gmx.at> <52A1F967.5070403@gmx.at> <6ee939f5-138d-4e5c-830e-8a20f8e45bea@default> <52A207C5.4070404@gmx.at> <12e899a3-dbf2-4b44-9b87-a0b9fc24f317@default> <52A2EE7B.4030105@gmx.at> <723644fb-f171-4bed-b8d0-7f9a1c8b9f7d@default> <52A4428F.4030101@gmx.at> <600e7b0c-73bb-4163-8d03-a8579f250045@default> <52A4B23E.9080609@gmx.at> <837gbeymiy.fsf@gnu.org> <52A60DD2.1020303@gmx.at> <83r49lxsxf.fsf@gnu.org> <52A6ED85.8020206@gmx.at> <52A6F1C4.3040803@gmx.at> <941b1292-a5c6-442d-afe8-d83aebf4b41c@default> <52A734F2.8020203@gmx.at> <52A98D4A.5000000@gmx.at> <039ebe72-12f8-49df-ae49-f1b7c56302e5@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1386871880 10871 80.91.229.3 (12 Dec 2013 18:11:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16028@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 12 19:11:23 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAjK-0008Hi-FE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:11:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38018 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAjJ-0005l9-9N for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:11:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50815) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAj8-0005d8-As for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:11:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAj1-0005oc-0v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:11:10 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60256) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAj0-0005oY-T2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:11:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAj0-0002p4-Hc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:11:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:11:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16028 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 16028-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16028.138687182410772 (code B ref 16028); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:11:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16028) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Dec 2013 18:10:24 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46039 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAiN-0002nf-V3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:10:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:55087) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VrAiH-0002nT-UM for 16028@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:10:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.47.35.230] ([62.47.35.230]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lh7PL-1VElAs0VoV-00oZrI for <16028@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:10:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: <039ebe72-12f8-49df-ae49-f1b7c56302e5@default> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:keab91zACofXBv3dKjhtDoMwPeg4EKgmu5R6ycJzcG47Ael152E jsF4CWIb9iZHbBn5+ANykWPnN4FzrWr9KUKJYkhsyE4Xj/F8xLAmvPJrlB4ANoJ/EKw+jzV GxTJPELuEHuNQNuLx1iGJTsKonFLXFIUV9HHNq1zZnO5Op9fyLlpd19IahQty2w6SWWgRi0 L+A3VZp5wLW1bePmXS56w== X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:81827 Archived-At: > Why should asking to change the scroll-bar width constitute a request to > also change the pixel size of the frame? Because that's what x_set_scroll_bar_width in frame.c does. Unfortunately so, IMHO. > Or did you mean only that > changing the scroll-bar width will change the frame width slightly? > The latter I could probably live with. When x_set_scroll_bar_width asks to change the frame size, it has to provide the new size in some way. In your particular case, it uses that of _before_ the font change since Windows did not propagate the new values back to us. >> Now before my changes, (2) asked the window manager to change the pixel >> size of the frame based on its line/column sizes multiplied by the >> default font sizes. After my changes, (2) asks to change the pixel size >> of the frame directly from the previously calculated pixel sizes. >> However, since on Windows (1) does not record the change of the pixel >> size caused by setting the font size, the request in (2) will be based >> on the pixel size of the frame before (1) was issued. > > Good to understand. Thx. Not sure what that means in terms of trying > to get my code to work properly with your new code (as well as with > prior Emacs code). Concrete suggestions welcome. I'm afraid there's not much you can do here. >> I don't know how to fix this properly. IIUC Emacs cannot wait until >> Windows passes the new sizes back to it in (1) just as it does on other >> systems. The sit-for I proposed earlier could work around this. If >> OTOH I restore the calculation for (2) to use the line/column values, >> people who want to change the scrollbar width exactly by pixels are >> lost. > > Are they necessarily lost, or is there some other way to accommodate both? > > BTW, as far as you can tell, is it just the scroll bar that is the problem > (wrt my code)? Hopefully, scrollbars on Windows are the only problem for you. martin