Re: Problem with new frame not recognizing `default-frame-alist' width and height

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Joost Kremers <joostkremers@fastmail.fm>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 09:14:20 +0100
> 
> On Mon, Feb 26 2024, tpeplt wrote:
> > The following problem seems like it is an error in Emacs that needs to
> > be reported, but it ought to be so common that it would have been
> > noticed already.  Since it hasn’t, perhaps it is a user error with
> > something I am overlooking.
> 
> It's a bug! I've been noticing the same thing since I switched to Emacs 29.2,
> but also figured it's probably user error. Since I don't often create a second
> frame, it didn't bother me enough to investigate, but if it's happening to
> others as well, it's probably a bug.
> 
> > The problem is happening when running Emacs 29.2 on GNU/Linux running
> > GNOME window manager.
> 
> Yes, that's my setup as well.
> 
> > In brief, the problem is that when a new frame is created, the new
> > frame’s default width and height are both small,
> 
> Yup. I actually never had any window size settings in my default-frame-alist,
> but up until Emacs 28, the default width/height was fine. And if I start Emacs
> by calling emacsclient, the frame that pops up is still that same size. But
> creating a new frame with `C-x 5 2` produces a much smaller frame. Unusably
> small, in fact.
> 
> > 6. Try the ‘clone-frame’ command that was introduced in Emacs 28: Type
> >    C-x 5 c.  The new frame does not clone the current frame’s width
> >    and height, but instead keeps the small 8x20 size as all other
> >    newly-created frames.
> 
> Indeed. Note that if you clone a frame with the `fullscreen` frame parameter set
> (to `maximized` in my case), cloning the frame yields another maximised frame.
> 
> > Are other Emacs 28/29 users able to reproduce this problem?
> 
> Emacs 29.2. I don't recall having this problem with Emacs 28, though I can't be
> entirely sure.
> 
> > If not, can you point to something erroneous that I am doing?
> 
> I don't think there is anything you're doing wrong.
> 
> Stefan Monnier suggested you report it as a bug, which is probably a good idea.

Isn't this bug#67654?  Are we talking about a GTK 3 build?