From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20727: 24.5; Font fallback doesn't work for the Emoji range Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:07:09 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <557C633D.8090508@cs.ucla.edu> References: <557B47B6.4080600@cs.ucla.edu> <837fr8q8dr.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4jnq0vz.fsf@gnu.org> <557C53E2.6070706@cs.ucla.edu> <83si9vpo0i.fsf@gnu.org> 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 1434215305 14551 80.91.229.3 (13 Jun 2015 17:08:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 17:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: v.schneidermann@gmail.com, andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, 20727@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 13 19:08:13 2015 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 1Z3ouj-0004if-An for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 19:08:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56554 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3oui-00005N-It for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:08:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60914) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3oud-000053-0O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:08:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3ouX-0001rV-Vr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:08:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:38430) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3ouX-0001rR-TW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:08:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3ouX-0004CU-OZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:08:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Paul Eggert Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 17:08:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20727 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: confirmed Original-Received: via spool by 20727-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20727.143421523816084 (code B ref 20727); Sat, 13 Jun 2015 17:08:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20727) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2015 17:07:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52890 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3otp-0004BM-R0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:07:18 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:38718) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3oto-0004B9-8w for 20727@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:07:16 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F01160806; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id DTWbzPF6kwXN; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9060F16080A; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id sOdg3GndfIWw; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-100-32-155-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [100.32.155.148]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69B86160806; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 In-Reply-To: <83si9vpo0i.fsf@gnu.org> 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:103902 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I don't really see why it's "way worth". Sorry, I mistyped (and used my Sylvester voice ). I meant that Symbola looks "way worse". I assume that you can see that in the screenshots, it's just that you can't reproduce the problem on your machine. > The Symbola font looks much more crisp on my system, FWIW. Which font > back-end did you configure Emacs to use? Sorry, I don't know what "font back-end" means. I'm running on Ubuntu 15.04 and configured Emacs with --enable-gcc-warnings. 'configure' outputs: Configured for 'x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'. Where should the build process find the source code? . What compiler should emacs be built with? gcc -std=gnu99 -g3 -O2 Should Emacs use the GNU version of malloc? yes (Using Doug Lea's new malloc from the GNU C Library.) Should Emacs use a relocating allocator for buffers? no Should Emacs use mmap(2) for buffer allocation? no What window system should Emacs use? x11 What toolkit should Emacs use? GTK3 Where do we find X Windows header files? Standard dirs Where do we find X Windows libraries? Standard dirs Does Emacs use -lXaw3d? no Does Emacs use -lXpm? yes Does Emacs use -ljpeg? yes Does Emacs use -ltiff? yes Does Emacs use a gif library? yes -lgif Does Emacs use a png library? yes -lpng12 Does Emacs use -lrsvg-2? yes Does Emacs use cairo? no Does Emacs use imagemagick? yes Does Emacs support sound? yes Does Emacs use -lgpm? yes Does Emacs use -ldbus? yes Does Emacs use -lgconf? yes Does Emacs use GSettings? yes Does Emacs use a file notification library? yes -lgio (gfile) Does Emacs use access control lists? no Does Emacs use -lselinux? no Does Emacs use -lgnutls? yes Does Emacs use -lxml2? yes Does Emacs use -lfreetype? yes Does Emacs use -lm17n-flt? yes Does Emacs use -lotf? yes Does Emacs use -lxft? yes Does Emacs directly use zlib? yes Does Emacs use toolkit scroll bars? yes > Also, if you use the iso10646-1 variant instead of the iso8859-1 as > the default font, doesn't that fix the problem Yes. The problem, I imagine, is that users will have put a fixed-width font of their own preference into their .Xdefaults or .Xresources file (e.g., "Emacs.font fixed"). This is reasonably common, and the recent change makes symbols look much worse, at least in my environment. By the way, I can reproduce a similar problem with "emacs -Q -font fixed". It's not as unreadable there, but it's still pretty bad: Symbola characters have a different width than the fixed-width characters that Emacs previously used, so source code listings no longer line up. > existing > fonts are frequently inadequate, in that they claim support for > Unicode ranges where they actually support only a handful of glyphs. > Users then complain that they have decent fonts (like Symbola) > installed, but Emacs still shows some characters as boxes with hex > code, instead of using Symbola. This doesn't seem to be a problem in Ubuntu and/or Fedora (the systems I typically use), and on these environments the cure seems to be worse than the disease. Is there some way we can heuristically tell whether we're in an environment where glyphs are often not supported? For example, can we convert a sample glyph or two to a bitmap and see whether it looks like a boxed hex code? (Just thinking out loud.) > I don't think it's a good idea to > go back to the previous arrangement where any font that claimed > iso10646-1 support would be considered as covering symbols and > punctuation well, because that means restoring the problems I tried to > fix in the first place. In that case I don't understand why emacs -Q -font -misc-fixed-medium-r-semicondensed--13-120-75-75-c-60-iso10646-1 works now. If Emacs is supposed to prefer Symbola to other fonts when displaying symbols, why isn't it using Symbola in this case?