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#25521: 26.0.50; After (make-frame '((name . "foo"))) (select-frame-by-name "foo") doesn't see the frame Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:33:18 +0200 Message-ID: <59CE054E.1010604@gmx.at> References: <87a8agrwwx.fsf@gmail.com> <83lgtz3jdf.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvefk54q.fsf@gmail.com> <87inp2u2nn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87r33qm4lh.fsf@gmail.com> <87a8adubtz.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <877f5hq0tl.fsf@gmail.com> <87ziids1j2.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83vat10wdp.fsf@gnu.org> <87wp7ukw8x.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <5955F510.5040101@gmx.at> <87efrr6rgx.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <59A95A75.8040100@gmx.at> <87bmmu7czr.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <59A980A5.9010705@gmx.at> <87zi9if9ux.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <59CB5D18.2090806@gmx.at> <87poacfifx.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> 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 1506674117 726 195.159.176.226 (29 Sep 2017 08:35:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:35:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 25521@debbugs.gnu.org, qwxlea@gmail.com To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 29 10:35:11 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 1dxqlK-00085c-GH for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:35:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34176 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqlR-0000GQ-QF for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:35:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46354) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqkH-0007pv-9N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:34:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqkE-0002Zp-5O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:34:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57092) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqkE-0002Zk-2X for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:34:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqkD-0006vV-MH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:34:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:34:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25521 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 25521-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25521.150667401926593 (code B ref 25521); Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:34:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25521) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Sep 2017 08:33:39 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37540 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqjr-0006ur-AX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:33:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:50796) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqjp-0006uf-QI for 25521@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:33:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([46.125.249.81]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MaE4a-1de7zd2Hjk-00JpbC; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:33:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87poacfifx.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:puxRCZhSynaMFp+wATtttnZTNM5ARAuzDrSyLO8B8gVxTTiZ83u l7xB4ANgxeH/dF/G4JXrHyGJtcAZIB9aRoQzJ21cG1vfaCA6ZbFIGK13UX+yjYdCD3Pvi9G Rk/sweNyU/7hcd7e5PzAoTfmadivCD0/isF5hstY0agriZQh+IfdViBzBoeEz8/olf5rnxy GLAWx2KvamTxTu1U8rc0Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:JD7drYCDpkQ=:NxJs9jk+MO2ROGxFp4iRAF ohRwXq2WvS0SP8w/JIXwFaTGkSY+u/EMrVGlWe2ulDENssd5VlYWpG4slMqpVUbgsuWuOg/Nn zEbGlkro15W9RUXlVplDQ1smOy/K2k/aH9GP8kIeyDgwLWvC8qRxXSenx4gp3a3CeSkvqJ4zg m1cHr0P778B8Oi226k/aTIiiWZPp42xuQgp95bSbA1P6c0VSEUaQ7DCQBhBJO/OvGUGPqV8Sc gSFhUdoUYVJMpO934AgI4oP4YxDl7EcoSIZUsUteMBkZZEW3DNDnHMCwpz7lwaped/SiFF7KJ h+6snE5LxzK2rLdKpoqkeHNMmUauPactzfkfrIOV5alH9m0xFFzt+s2vSR3ob5rHJxTyAgyBi lJDrjI3PJeIRqY5siHR7yTxTsmt0JvE4oKCI/3qsN2cPmEBjX4oJCX7nvF4xuQOJ3hLWFdeji 0msLVOJiw8tx12zgqn5SYZylYp+M3gyqmOb9mNW4l74QbIYyYu06pF4mPiJMD9uH3C5oCriPd 1OETF4NgnF/TpZvRnxl59HK72GScPw6N7j+RVl5n6JJF5CwKs5E05xzkpS187eGfgF511FwuJ a3cjRGvbCYjj9x14tV4lGq79ebG3OtG0bbjgLcCH5GE6KS7ravMiad7slqHJUXU81UDohWH6z CJ17WKBMKwjUQIFksUKvbWfAW/S8fquK2wtYIO9WlB0l6ghsIoVThRY7TkpStBZmRf2bZ993e SJUL4tVVL/FoTX3dAqjRQgxS9/lBN9/QCbBF53fzFbTnqD5JOpuh2c5PeENUD7rqST9oipvQ 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:137566 Archived-At: > I think you might have to change window managers. Then I'll probably prefer to rather not play around with this. > Hmm, that is actually less effect than I expected. I recall now that > some non-relevant MapNotify events get sent in this case [1]. These > make x_wait_for_event (f, MapNotify) return earlier than the previous > busy wait. > > Should we wrap a timeout loop around the x_wait_for_event call? Or make > the wait more selective (e.g., check that the given frame matches)? > Seems a bit like overkill considering that a timeout of longer than 1 > second is unlikely to be wanted, on the other hand, we're not really > waiting for the right thing... > > [1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24091#57 Shouldn't it work to wait only for VisibilityNotify events for the given frame? martin