[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
frame position is too low with negative `top' (was: Patch to fix frame p
frame position is too low with negative `top' (was: Patch to fix frame positioning bug on Windows...)
Tue, 17 May 2005 16:22:35 -0700
I don't mean to pester folks about this bug, but I'd like to know whether
someone intends to fix this. If not, I'll just hack my local code to raise
the frame 44 pixels or so, for now.
I should also have shown the kind of code I use:
(cdr (assq 'left (frame-parameters (selected-frame))))
(- (frame-char-height (selected-frame))))
I should mention that the display bottom seems now to be the physical
display bottom, whereas before (e.g. Emacs 20) it was the bottom of the
usable display area, not counting the Windows task bar, which takes up about
30 pixels in height.
It could be argued that that's OK, and not necessarily a bug. With that
design intention in mind, the buggy offset is a bit less than I indicated
below: It would appear to really be off by only about 14 pixels (which is my
FYI, the Windows task bar is, by default, all along the bottom of the
display, about 30 pixels in height. Users can position it elsewhere,
however. Perhaps, ideally, Emacs could determine this position and calculate
the usable display dimensions accordingly. However, it is also possible to
auto-hide the task bar, so it may not be worth trying to adjust the usable
display size (and position!)according to the task-bar position.
Also, whether or not the tool-bar and minibuffer are visible has no effect.
However, if the *menu-bar* is not shown, then the problem goes away (modulo
the Windows task-bar). So, perhaps the fix is as simple as doing whatever is
done when the menu-bar is not shown. That is, perhaps frame-positioning is
just not taking the menu-bar height into account when it figures the frame
I'm seeing the same behavior in a later snapshot, as well:
In GNU Emacs 184.108.40.206 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
of 2005-04-16 on LAPTOP
Distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'
FYI, I obtained the snapshot here: http://www.crasseux.com/emacs/.
From: Drew Adams [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:50 PM
To: Francis Litterio; address@hidden
Subject: RE: Patch to fix frame positioning bug on Windows with
(make-frame '((left . -1)))
I'm not sure if this is related to the thread below, but, in
GNU Emacs 220.127.116.11 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2005-01-30 on
NONIQPC, the positioning of a frame with `top' parameter = -14
places the frame about 4 character-heights too low on the
display. Instead of the bottom of the frame being 14 pixels
above the display bottom, it appears to be about 28 pixels
below the display bottom. My (frame-char-height) is 14. I'm on
[mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Patch to fix frame positioning bug on Windows with
(make-frame '((left . -1)))
Jan D. wrote:
>> Using Emacs built from CVS source code on Windows XP, the
>> using the following Emacs-Lisp code is positioned such that the
>> rightmost 7 pixels of the frame are off the right edge
of the screen:
>> (make-frame '((width . 80) (height . 20) (top . 0)
(left . -1)))
>> The below patch solves the problem but it may not be optimal
>> simply subtracts 7 from the computed value of f->left_pos.
> Can you verify if your change has any impact on this bug:
> This was the reason a change was made. It may be
impossible to get
> Emacs to work correctly on W32. Just [subtracting] 7 is
no good, as
> you self pointed out, a more general solution must be found.
My change breaks the fix for that bug, so I'm going to investigate
In my testing, I noticed that (make-frame '((top . -1))) on Windows
suffers an even worse positioning error -- about 30 pixels
at the bottom
of the frame fall off the bottom of the screen!
I would think that when a frame is positioned so that it is
visible, we have the following variables and relations:
OUTER-LEFT: The number of pixels between the left screen edge
and the left border drawn by Windows of the frame.
This can be 0.
LEFT-BORDER: The width of the left border drawn by Windows
FRAME-CONTENT-WIDTH: The width of the frame content, including
the fringes but not including the left and
right borders drawn by Windows.
RIGHT-BORDER: The width of the right border drawn by Windows (in
OUTER-RIGHT: The number of pixels between the right screen edge
and the right border drawn by Windows of the frame.
This can be 0.
DISPLAY-WIDTH: The width of the display (in pixels).
and finally this relation should hold:
DISPLAY-WIDTH = OUTER-LEFT + LEFT-BORDER + FRAME-CONTENT-WIDTH +
RIGHT-BORDER + OUTER-RIGHT
A similar relation can be constructed for the vertical screen
Given this model, we should be able to make w32term.c
consistently, regardless of whether the 'top or 'left frame
was positive or negative (modulo the issue with the user
being able to
change the width of the border drawn by Windows -- but it
with Windows' default border sizes).