[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#27923: 24.3; -iconic switch screws up geometry

From: Geoff Kuenning
Subject: bug#27923: 24.3; -iconic switch screws up geometry
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:59:34 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

But just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, in all of these cases emacs is coming up with a correct window size after I
deiconify it.

I'm not sure I understand the last sentence. Correct in the sense that
the main window displays 80x78 characters?

Yes, that's right. Whenever I refer to "works right" I mean that if I launch with -iconic and then de-iconify, I get a window that's the size I expect.

Hmmm, though...I just discovered that "emacs -Q --iconic" produces a
different result: it creates an 80x35 frame (79x34 according to
xwininfo) even when my xrdb contains both an Emacs.geometry of
80x78+100+0 and a slightly conflicting gnuemacs.geometry of
80x78+1180+0. (I have no clue why I have both!) This implies that
there's something in my .emacs that's relevant.

You mean there's something in your .emacs that gets you a different height: 80/79 without loading .emacs and 35/34 with loading .emacs?

I didn't identify the source of the problem, but yes.

BTW, that email was a bit of a stream of consciousness: I was typing it as I was doing experiments and being interrupted over the course of a few hours.

area. However, in the process I discovered that there must be a race,
because on a hunch I tried launching twice with no change in my
.emacs, and once was OK and once produced the narrow window.

I'm confused now - is the 35/34 above the width or the height of the

Sorry, bad typing on my part.  35/34 was the height.

Anyway, I finally got down to the following two lines:

(menu-bar-mode -1)
(set-default-font (x-get-resource "Font" ""))

With both of those present, I get the absurdly narrow frame. If I remove the first, then I get a frame that's 38x78. If I leave the first and remove the second, I get a teeny frame that's too small to type in, but xwininfo reports it as 1x1 (so suppose emacs thinks it's 2x2). And if I remove both, I get a properly sized frame. (This is
all with my xrdb restored, BTW.)

Sounds weird. BTW what does evaluating (x-get-resource "Font" "")

I'll give that a shot tomorrow.

But that's not the strangest part. I cut my .emacs down to JUST those two lines, and things then worked fine. More testing eventually gave me
the following .emacs file (this is 100% of the contents):

(if nil
    (setq load-path (append
                      '(lambda (value)
                         (if (and (stringp value)
(not (string-match "^/usr/local/" value)) (string-match "^/usr/" value)) (replace-match "/usr/local/" t t value)
(menu-bar-mode -1)
(set-default-font (x-get-resource "Font" ""))

Obviously, the first bit of code doesn't get executed. But if I remove it, launching in iconic mode works! Having it there makes stuff break.

Note that the .emacs above is 532 bytes. Is there an ancient 512-byte
buffer somewhere?  I tried replacing the "if nil" part with 512
semicolons, but that didn't produce an error.

We occasionally use(d) a 512 byte limit to search for the occurrence of
something in a file but I see no connection to your case.

Color me confused...

Maybe the best thing to do at this moment is that you try with a later version of Emacs, 25.3 at least. My GNU/Linux machine crashed a few years ago and I still did not restore my older Emacs versions including that of Emacs 24. Also, on Windows the --iconic switch did not even work with Emacs 24, so maybe in this area something has changed on GNU/Linux as well. If you upgrade, we could try to synchronize our observations better. Note that on GNU/Linux it's already an enormous pain to compare the behavior of the same version of Emacs under two
different window managers.

It may not happen until the Christmas break, but I'm sure I can manage to get the latest version installed. It would be wonderful if the bug went away on its own!
Geoff Kuenning address@hidden http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~geoff/

Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very;" your
editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.
        -- Mark Twain

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]