On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 17:20, martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:

>
> With "good" scenario I meant one where you don't see any shrinking.  A
> "bad" scenario is one where you see it.  Sorry for being unclear.
>

I feel I'm being a bit slow here. As I understand it, I see shrinking with
every new window in an unpatched Emacs, and with your recent patch, I don't
see shrinking; as I previously said, for me currently, bad == unpatched and
good == patched. Does that sound right?

Please apply the attached diff to an unpatched Emacs and tell me whether
> the frame sizes for a bad scenario are in any way different from those
> that you see for the same bad scenario in an unpatched Emacs.  Here the
> patch has no effect.
>

So as far as I can tell, this request supersedes any outstanding previous
requests; does that sound right? Once I've given you these data, you'll
have frame sizes as given at the breakpoint for three scenarios:

1. Patched (already done).
2. Plain unpatched (not yet done).
3. Unpatched but with natural size forced to 800x600.

-- 
https://rrt.sc3d.org