From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25818: 25.2; frame moved off display does not return (OS X) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:05:14 +0100 Message-ID: <58B3DDBA.6060003@gmx.at> References: <58AEA232.4000708@gmx.at> <58B30634.1090904@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488182813 13976 195.159.176.226 (27 Feb 2017 08:06:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 25818@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Charles A. Roelli" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 27 09:06:48 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGKU-0002yi-7g for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50944 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGKa-0003tk-Ay for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:06:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60562) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGJp-0003YB-Ex for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:06:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGJm-0004ZB-8D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:06:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59283) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGJm-0004Z5-3A for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:06:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGJl-0000Q3-Sp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:06:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:06:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25818 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 25818-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25818.14881827481592 (code B ref 25818); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:06:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25818) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2017 08:05:48 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57482 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGJY-0000Pc-4o for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:05:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:50663) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciGJW-0000PQ-D9 for 25818@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:05:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.68.43]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MCxfb-1cYfnr30wl-009f8L; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:05:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:wX2e/H+pstbJaXk3Tb9VQYg4QiuXrSCP4B1D6gWb5o9oztXULSZ 97AxWEiUqBOvdwyFoT/n//SJJHAUzJTkhnz0BaBJu8kY6ReMAS2/vvRdEjAmQS0MCirCkEN jTuTcXLGep4SWMSrY5qcZ2ZXXo8zTZIrbcLSZp17gTsD7DAe/3VM13Pf03klSNLTKViMUB7 NsXqfJg2p3+WbRhW1ioOA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:bYRgq2b4cOM=:oq31fpE7FJzYUH1bin2/bb O1z2RkenCo5EF91bKTkkfxP5WJiDOkBcxglNquvAkxPr6aLw8BgHIGczZLPim7Zb8cxHCZzpd CV3PzwoVf0E0wjuPq1fIsBlw6ivEh/KE/eoIDuehZoRu+Z3SlAtotze049c0iE8x6a5I069oX NZgzRDPOSCvP1aAACPqwPZk7cRxmCK4+xKRotvUnHp5+JDqyMYGi75XYpDNWYjLb96uvOm8DZ NBSsIDgAvmQhuJZxbdlmvqVtlH0c4PMohY/0XCf+9ht0CqFYpsTtyy1YsYNaU3dw/2QiyUP7B dErNIEPPjEZ3e1Ab4eNxxmvjdpQlaCI2VJfPT9RW1pGNs8W41iSeOGUajDmZD7owdpjHBZacW xIkn+cIE6HPOeUjti8JeC7BImaAJB3n3T6liVLnZM2bwT9XH4+P8ObQnEh0Q8zeLr/8do6nX2 3ZalFfLVIlkMkwiVDT5rneHGXd5e2Hvk39ufu6z76RyqEvoSubucNa9pFELQSI2cg0czzQD1p NlIu6I0OX2DzoqzHD8RPHxlIAM0kwbveETM7Fjb5FZvdsyPMM0YXPnst8oeq912Ujy1lBf79S Lr7H1KHJXe7zfsfdAuX4HSq9F+umFKqNw5SoekF5Ul63locvLxp49bC6VK3I9gPHb/4mhe0y+ cDZSG0deHF8lX4o6kGHctrOw6DM+VnaPwAJxtCMAom8hXNNXvwUzPYMWgjbrpX4aUX/qgbTsP 1nPE9vSq/t0V0eR8DDVSFCIzGM3ZtM2w+XMeF9e3ow717L2z4/Czu9yi64cZTbgg0SUyHe1i X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:129872 Archived-At: > No, I did not; thanks for the reminder. In 24.3, with a second monitor > plugged in, (display-pixel-width) returns 1280, i.e. the width only of > my primary monitor. In 24.4, in the same situation, > (display-pixel-width) returns 2330 = (+ 1280 1050). Second monitor is > 1050 pixels wide. So the problem occurs only with the second monitor plugged in? > In both the case of 24.3 and 24.4 with no external monitor attached, > (display-pixel-width) returns 1280. And there is no problem in this case with 24.4? > So it seems that the code for `display-pixel-width' (or code that it > calls) was changed between those releases, maybe to support multiple > monitors. The code was changed in two tranches 2013-05-20 YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu 2013-07-04 YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu I'll CC him - maybe he can help us solving this issue in a more general way. > I notice now that when running the test form on 24.3, the created frame > never actually leaves the visible portion of the screen. For example, > when the code calls (sleep-for 1) with the frame supposedly being > offscreen according to its frame parameters (right before step 2), the > frame is in reality maybe 50 pixels left of the screen's right edge. > This is with just one monitor. When I run the example with two > monitors, the frame just spills into the second monitor but does not go > further (since 24.3 does not seem to give correct values for > `display-pixel-width' with multiple monitors). Do you mean that the value is already wrong for the primary monitor or that the value simply does not account for the second monitor? > So it seems like there used to be code in Emacs that prevented a frame > from programmatically leaving the screen area in OS X. For example, in > 24.3, if I call (modify-frame-parameters nil '((left . 10000))), the > frame is put, as above, about 50 pixels left of the screen's right edge. In any case we have to change ediff-wind.el in order to fix the issue at hand. martin