From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs's set-frame-size can not work well with gnome-shell? Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:48:09 +0100 Message-ID: References: <2056a194.3971.16f8d4dd4c5.Coremail.tumashu@163.com> <728856fd-dab1-eade-54f5-6ba2c299373a@gmx.at> <6c775e15-1113-8406-5583-97c259305a7d@yandex.ru> <0fe2d245-9ac1-3528-e710-38462441f8aa@gmx.at> <9bac54df-8cd3-303d-910e-07e161ff1f3e@gmx.at> <414ade05-1ae6-75c2-9af1-e1eee42799a0@yandex.ru> <44010781-43f0-3bc3-06ed-475c526dee36@gmx.at> <70813591-8c24-cb30-8ecf-0c413a51f472@gmx.at> <81215100-3476-9d2c-f535-f57fbd18fd8b@yandex.ru> <8a485c09-535a-97e6-9817-31e6d2f93adb@gmx.at> <0734f22f-9237-d46a-27d5-016444f48d70@gmx.at> <5e28c37f-95a9-a5ae-d73c-b5bb769154c0@yandex.ru> <4c0993c7-0583-8573-60c5-ab0a92121fd3@gmx.at> <4b114f01-d8d9-2c33-6312-1e2e60a5d462@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="35171"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Dmitry Gutov , tumashu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 14 09:51:04 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1j2Wgh-00095N-V4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:51:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36222 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j2Wgg-0002FG-NN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:51:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40993) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j2WeA-000841-1c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:48:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2We5-0004ab-2h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:48:25 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:51585) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2We4-0004Xj-Lb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:48:21 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1581670090; bh=16VaHz2ShjW6MfidrOnRkRMWHCN9EVV11bHmSeSW9R8=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BEV7skTMY0QqFe3VxSV4qcNwyxxW3ofSPvxkByagTcQ+UHDi4RLPAevIX7xu9fcU8 xahXuRAjLMXa0iAaJUcJJyeKkRVMEMYfl5xDmxdVlE+dJUZQi+B/YjHwQjWO1UO2O6 0EwKDTkldQYoFJW+58hqFstwrVdQ8lLMx+5UMZU0= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([212.95.5.221]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MiJVG-1jeaQG2nSQ-00fTKf; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:48:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4b114f01-d8d9-2c33-6312-1e2e60a5d462@yandex.ru> Content-Language: en-US X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:hLPwgBp5QOZ5YK6QG0aRKQ0l4Gho/3JTlDu9bCNR7n25uiRKOJT POk9WAMbrY77JX0ud4bJy1gSHtRqIKk85TG4lDQxqToKkSDZrDRTrPVsvN3jRUB1C8WR7Cg 3Vv+09LhWwxJymohTl9dS4Wvue+YtAQ1WEPrQ7zc2ntUBIg1DVcPzLGyMQ9xHlw2sL58no2 LmzXMGB4Eg4flXRs9aIKg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:KA/MqswAIlA=:5FwxZ/tZ2BTRkLBUsoJ/iz 86ToRPcZvG1uyr5GJ6F0PTHzf2QUYkjmAPtF8e0l0zz8bDnB5IHNndMBsZrk+SP1H5fV6onoJ A0BsgQrA6O3W6QviqRt3xBYupVuEqEtp0C/7y04wQIhGjV7arUSoPVKH0GpEBogeMOm/S3ILZ 2tyHWqYsd/gFUr42y1jbCasouoo5yb9nyUudxNqcJWIjTM3PHDe2wBnWjABNKId5fVIqNPGZX RL/sExcA/MRW51GdA7RxIIUV5CASeOuSDwnamOPgugClUgEsZfkT/XYCl3THg6zgDNOOofjj9 ekGH1J7CULmLBlOmCL9OOST5XVk/pEaoieN9PlnAi5AmRHu+zoz8J8s1KHT0A+cGXU7pXjdJv HG+PX6t3uBlaIoTaPjWkBjzQRWh4VspPZSYY8jxLf1n1ssNiPUAfcs47KPUY8LQ2ZIOh6OMlw ed70F0ZC8zk46S+yjHe3+cnsUOw+G6cwjcM+nmKIeDGbvsBUuxbuprRs2+YQAl4Xe74OMW2wq ZXeeC8WzMJ7zaXYx+enuCGfw6IdiHD75gESztqWe3i4VwcqpUEkC4cnnOAnhAenJtG5g/u2mm nRuOknDcEhws48MGn2mNF2EHwkjrhYb6ii0MlhQPEJbCATi3xQ6hTvzQBpkQbiRXg8H74Y/wz 1hosWrmxOCfNZE+oVUHThlFa2PHRdKkKd3l98Pz4axkwqFoo/JT9afPsVG6oAZP5S8MrvH8uE 16DHYgtyBxdbon0cngxI7R8KDvqGmatR1hIncM6bVdKMdKxu8oQo0S3nXJ63MY/gE93o1vcn X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.17.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:244936 Archived-At: > Sounds like posframe could make this work if both patches could be > pushed to emacs-27, and if they didn't break any other window > managers. We could add another variable to control the behavior of the use_gdk_resize variant. It's a really awful hack in either case, though. > (Hiding the child frame during resizing could be used only when resizing down from the unreasolable large size, for example). "down"? Conceptually, the patches are mutually exclusive. I don't know whether it's possible to reconcile them the way you sketch above. > BTW, are they supposed to be applied on top of current emacs-27? The second one fails with: > > $ patch -p1 < hide-child-frame-during-resize.diff > patching file src/gtkutil.c > Hunk #2 FAILED at 1002. > Hunk #3 succeeded at 1018 (offset 1 line). > 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/gtkutil.c.rej > patching file src/xterm.c > Hunk #1 succeeded at 13763 (offset 16 lines). They apply here properly against latest Emacs 27 (using git apply) but _not_ on top of each other. Both patches are based on your earlier observations. I have not found out anything new in this area. Perhaps you (and maybe someone else) could try to run either of them for a while and tell us whether they render the overall behavior unbearable. Also, I have no idea whether any kind of eventual unmapping or hiding a child frame may render further enlargings impossible again. In particular, I don't know who stores that "initial" frame size someone uses to compare the requested frame size against and refuses to grant the request when the latter is larger. martin