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#16967: frame related race condition Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:04:18 +0100 Message-ID: <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1394478315 6283 80.91.229.3 (10 Mar 2014 19:05:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:05:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 10 20:05:23 2014 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 1WN5Vp-0004ht-Al for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:05:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50679 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5Vo-0006aE-Si for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:05:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5Ve-0006Ov-TH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:05:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5VX-0001QK-8p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:05:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59398) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5VX-0001Ph-6N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:05:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5VW-0008RM-Kw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:05:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:05:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139447827032380 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:05:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 19:04:30 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60580 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5Uz-0008Q9-GX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:04:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:60795) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5Uv-0008Py-BH for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:04:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [91.113.3.213] ([91.113.3.213]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MY7ZA-1WjCsA4Bcm-00UuTT; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:04:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:b+Pb+ZHmInowC/gbyUh5awZ8OmzmjXvD9ifbgQFG7cfZyfa3ZVM 7ffSxCwyvfuM1RTcNfam71TwxlckWFcLtWFeZ69lv1lK/vM2EoiY+foTR4uQXgABbH/OJ27 O4IngMNYa9AA7BSimXNIAyLUWTJeR2cfs8+5TX2uDC2MJyhDkMBuScvnWVCnG5BJGURvQkA zR+zgV7d2q7Bt+9owiQDg== 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:86724 Archived-At: >> should create a normally visible frame f. The fact that this frame has >> its visibility set to zero at the time you `delete-frame' c indicates >> that we have a pretty awful bug. > > Yes Really? I was just starting to think otherwise. >> The implications of this are >> substantial because SET_FRAME_VISIBLE has to redisplay_other_windows and >> if that is not done, the consequences are not restricted to the toy >> scenario you gave. > > I don't know what "toy scenario" are you refering to, The one of this bug report which IIUC even you consider "an occasional problem" ;-) > but certainly > > emacs -Q > M-: (make-frame '((visibility))) > > is not a toy scenario *at all*. For one, it will prevent > frameset-restore to restore invisible frames (I could work around it, > but it'll be a hack). OK. Then I have a motivation to revert it. >> No. But we apparently have the problem that Emacs on Windows thinks >> that a frame is invisible although it isn't. And we have to find out >> where this notion of invisibility gets introduced - maybe it's easy to >> spot it, maybe, likely it's part of my pixelwise changes, and we can >> withdraw my "fix" soon. > > I think bug#14841 is a clue that the visibility mismatch between Emacs > and the Windows wm predates your pixelwise changes. I think that I misjudged the severity of the problem. Drew's latest reports hint at some mysterious behavior which I haven't been able to understand yet so I'm suspecting potential culprits around every corner. > I would certainly prefer that you reverted your last change. Done. > You're > fixing an occasional problem and introducing a perfectly repeatable > one. Sorry for the inconvenience. martin