Here are the steps to reproduce: 1. emacs -Q 2. enter these three words: hṛṣyatha (h#x1E5B#x1E63yatha) kṣiptaḥ (k#x1E63ipta#x1E25) viśāmaḥ (vi#x015B#x0101ma#x1E25) At this stage everything is fine, all of the characters use the same font therefore all of them return the same font after evaluating (font-at (point)) on them: # 3. Now eval the following in the buffer (set-face-attribute 'default nil :font "JetBrains Mono" :weight 'regular :height 170) Now you'll notice that the font for some of the characters above are different from JetBrainsMono, these characters are: ṛ (#x1e5b) ṣ (#x1e63) ḥ (#x1e25) (font-at (point)) returns # on all of them while for the rest of the characters gives # Changing the weight from regular to medium also does not help, the offending characters instead of being displayed with Latin Modern Mono are now displayed with: # while the rest of the characters are displayed with # I have also included screenshots from emacs -Q before, emacs -Q after and hb-view from JetBrains Hope this makes things clear, if something is still missing please tell me. Thanks On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 11:33 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh > > > > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 04:49:37 +0530 > > > > codepoints of faulty characters in the above mail: > > ṣ #x1e63 > > ṇ #x1e47 > > ḍ #x1e0d > > Please _always_ show the actual text, not just an image of its > display. It is practically impossible to know what text you used > given just its display screenshot, especially when character > compositions are involved. > > In any case, we will need a reproducible recipe starting from > "emacs -Q". Also, please include in your report the output of > > M-: (font-at (point)) RET > > for the "good" and the "faulty" characters. > > In general, reporting issues with fonts need as many specific details > as you can collect, because these issues are inherently > system-specific, due to different sets of fonts installed on each > system, and due to font customizations that are outside of Emacs (on > the Fontconfig level). The probability of getting unreproducible > results is very high, and each detail helps. >