From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Visuwesh Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#53729: 29.0.50; Tamil text not shaped in modeline Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:35:28 +0530 Message-ID: <8735l0p8nr.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87h79h438r.fsf@gmail.com> <83r18l5cc6.fsf@gnu.org> <87tudg7kzz.fsf@gmail.com> <83bkzo5rgs.fsf@gnu.org> <877dacpe2k.fsf@gmail.com> <83zgn8482y.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31325"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 53729@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 03 11:06:43 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFZ0l-00081z-1m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:06:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39772 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nFZ0k-0001Ic-1z for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 05:06:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51444) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nFZ08-0001Gp-MK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 05:06:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60659) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nFZ05-0007a3-Uy for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 05:06:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFZ05-0002H7-KF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 05:06:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Visuwesh Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 10:06:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 53729 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 53729-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B53729.16438827418691 (code B ref 53729); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 10:06:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 53729) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Feb 2022 10:05:41 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54556 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFYzk-0002G7-Jm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 05:05:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:46594) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFYzh-0002Fr-9n for 53729@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 05:05:39 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id s16so1846088pgs.13 for <53729@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 02:05:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+bHoCezMCMWF95b39df+lCRZ6R4vhbrbcaHcJI6lpH0=; b=ZFJgl9FiPb/yTFefZvedZHAjqbeBGJGNe9WEfaozw6DcIdEyiCahHAHxFNWmLk+xua Vz5a4LGbHfBjlFcatCVzgdYLqDX0h2QcfdoH3GsK4xLDm3ufV6EnpB5gN0anAP6SGQyy 5IT/wFk8EISo3BG1x8Q0Og/TZOfe5YkWashnP3rOrvwXcqRmCbLRWpdmO1glUZVddgUT bEu6mxCecCvS1MhOuj/eq5BgO7TUmtsMe4PzgLm7jsqXLzuNBi78NDsTcYTbWzqcTek9 hmXAVYG+5/zqSY0ugM8RWL9x4jE6X4ys0iUPNS92sO4X2zrfiT3DxnrgPbZVIif48291 PloQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+bHoCezMCMWF95b39df+lCRZ6R4vhbrbcaHcJI6lpH0=; b=Plq8yty+NW8HMEBSIQ4B7PtEKnvDzIogb8x0KIE6fzPaKYj+vzK3fSfCRKCNLYAFSh sBch1kCaPDuqoHuapVO4GHocmTvki+AV2+NkzRVpSaQqdx7Kth1ZhfROOESi5oQn/JX8 ++7r0KDQlIlkiQoQ4xZMHfY8OGw/1Vnyw7PYCiioEN6SifOe1N+Y+UjwUkEDKeL5w6K/ TAjHJIBy1X1pDhNu24h6j0E+Coy8Xrcl9GEeN5tO81kurtzhYNFMjJ7giJQNPm/uLGAM ClrWz2SC6uLFN41GkTH7XUWkAYQOfW1jcWXZmrAaa5IWjOdVwoD2yX9qLH5lWhwdygSy Oq3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533zltlsZa4gK320akr0cFoiC9A1FpoS3ksee0orrtIXmv4XjqXK v7hXrkum06ssa4TcQ5h1oCI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHI3adSLG5URkCMKGykWe35InEHY3N1n59e7WKYLzKYht7LJ9rNdclggmaHGdkmo3IyJewYQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9d9b:: with SMTP id f27mr33286264pfq.84.1643882731240; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 02:05:31 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost ([49.204.130.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s6sm36765981pgk.44.2022.02.03.02.05.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 02:05:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83zgn8482y.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:23:33 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:225861 Archived-At: [=E0=AE=B5=E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=AF=E0=AE=BE=E0=AE=B4=E0=AE=A9=E0=AF=8D, =E0=AE=AA= =E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=AA=E0=AF=8D=E0=AE=B0=E0=AE=B5=E0=AE=B0=E0=AE=BF 03 2022] El= i Zaretskii wrote: >> I suppose so but I'm confident that "Noto Serif Tamil" is the font used >> in the modeline. The only other Tamil font I have installed is "Noto >> Sans Tamil" and I can easily make out the difference between the two. >> Font selection does not seem to be the problem, at least. > > It could be that Emacs selects some variant of Noto Serif Tamil (some > weight or maybe width) which causes this. Right. I know I cannot trust my eyes but it seems to be the bold font but I will step through in gdb. > Btw, can you try this with other fonts and see if any of them displays > the buffer name correctly in the mode line? > I tried "Lohit Tamil" but the text is not shaped properly when I use it too, and the (incorrect) shaping is different from what I observe when I use "Noto Serif Tamil". I will try other fonts over the weekend and report back. >> In either case, I think I can only get to this in two weeks. And is the >> information in etc/DEBUG all I need (except the breakpoint which will be >> provided?)? > > It should get you started, yes. There are special commands defined in > src/.gdbinit that will help showing Lisp objects, and feel free to ask > for guidance if you aren't sure how to proceed or have any questions. > Thanks. >> You're right. In the OP, even simple combinations like =E0=AE=95 + =E0= =AF=8D is not >> rendered right: the dot should be on top of =E0=AE=95 but in the buffer = name, it >> is next to it. However, Emacs seems to have no problem shaping =E0=AE= =95 + =E0=AE=BF. >> The grossest of all is =E0=AE=95 + =E0=AF=81 where the combined letter s= hould be =E0=AE=95 plus >> some kind of arc that surrounds the letter i.e., =E0=AE=95=E0=AF=81 (hop= efully Emacs >> renders this fine on your end, if not, I guess I could write it down on >> paper and send a picture). > > OK, thanks. > > One more question: which version of HarfBuzz do you have installed > there? HarfBuzz 3.0.0, and if it matters, I have: Cairo 1.16.0, Pango 1.48.10.