From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:21:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: Bug-Gnu-Emacs Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.139429563128055 (code B ref -1); Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:21:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2014 16:20:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56725 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJzD-0007IQ-08 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:31 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34110) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJzA-0007II-Ra for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz9-0007LL-Ct for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:38742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz9-0007L3-8V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:27 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35831) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz8-0008UB-5n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz7-0007Kl-6v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:26 -0500 Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]:47596) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz6-0007Ka-Ra for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:24 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 9so14336218ykp.1 for ; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 08:20:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Jh7opoKW4v+Qs7ZZi8EBeYcHBFw7MNVRAPatDRPr38c=; b=mpw8jn0oqqtQviGcp8DClx0OZ+B4aeMia+sX7JRD2Hpcet59TEkSRJYx9EHvQ5LcJK 8uu4UdC+5D4nDaiWBUsC+Lav8YZOILmzkH+91qv+33ztUOtCtQ3OtQMvw+R8bXLXerR2 DgCYuU2aYGFTANVMQMbMXHukhRFzpqJcIKul8xFncb3uMSsm49D2eky7V07XKZa1LR7V atyIsIpy1f3am9kCAFeeVho7L6bBepOVjcPjgz55KnmdDHrJV2ucxxUnudyULEWAhfbx JKvBarJBZDWz+iJMj6aiyScBCwwBVt8DZvvp2zJx7XJ/3AoWvVsGzlEth133kko7qV/5 eyQA== X-Received: by 10.236.36.16 with SMTP id v16mr41459yha.153.1394295624003; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 08:20:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.163.3 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 08:19:43 -0800 (PST) From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:19:43 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Package: emacs Version: 24.3.50 emacs -Q then type this in *scratch* (let* ((c (selected-frame)) (f (make-frame))) (sit-for 0) (select-frame-set-input-focus f) (sit-for 0) (delete-frame c)) then evaluate the let repeteadly. It's not hard to get "let*: Attempt to delete the sole visible or iconified frame". From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:05:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139444229413528 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:05:03 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 09:04:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58686 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMw8k-0003W7-6u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 05:04:54 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:51029) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMw8i-0003Vt-2y for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 05:04:52 -0400 Received: from [188.23.120.186] ([188.23.120.186]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5Z5A-1X75jt1M6K-00xa0F; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:04:50 +0100 Message-ID: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:04:40 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:blFwPUiAf2zN++mPxXnQuGOd8CUVBsGVVrj8yzWf4DR5HKY9Km9 0ZFFQwnshUkck0j5DnByf6Av8JNM0W0/b/4Q2IqDTmLj/Gbi43QetVTE3jOxppQNmpNBP4n hc+iVl8F57UxVyt2bpK93Cd0D0yo5ujfs63nKvk8OlQnBXoI8XqgN5EMuHQNfzptLKfS4aj tZ79TpcwQrFkJWKW+qunw== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) > emacs -Q > > then type this in *scratch* > > (let* ((c (selected-frame)) > (f (make-frame))) > (sit-for 0) > (select-frame-set-input-focus f) > (sit-for 0) > (delete-frame c)) > > then evaluate the let repeteadly. It's not hard to get "let*: Attempt > to delete the sole visible or iconified frame". Confirmed. But doing (while t (let* ((c (selected-frame)) (f (make-frame))) (sit-for 0) (select-frame-set-input-focus f) (sit-for 0) (delete-frame c))) here chokes only the first time around and proceeds without complaints afterwards. Is it that what you mean or are there additional problems? And if possible, can you show the value of f->visible of the other frame, that is the one that should be retained, at the time Emacs complains that you want to delete its only visible or iconified frame? martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:33:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139444757423460 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:33:01 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 10:32:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58725 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMxVt-00066J-Fo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 06:32:53 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:63690) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMxVr-00066B-6s for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 06:32:52 -0400 Received: from [188.23.120.186] ([188.23.120.186]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5HZD-1X6Ffa05Nv-00zVbZ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:32:49 +0100 Message-ID: <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:32:43 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:a0qdpHfokx1bDGHX6QYJACTAFt67pZCcJNP+v0PKPk88WVq7JjE df3GhBubKaW9vIH2QbhD6uOvmEbKFzN/K2ajMHOTYQ1YwtTMEKA8g+6NPkHc3S4R1idp4cu cXuktKpHNEhGfsN7nR5QzpXvYXjmzNWSikGyO3tayWOehgkHKro3ji7h3EnPj1x94rSeL+M pvUYybZEXD01ZRojjrNpg== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) I checked in a fix in revision 116716. With that I can't see the problem any more. Can you? martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:10:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139444978232137 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:10:01 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 11:09:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58741 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMy5V-0008MG-Q2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:09:42 -0400 Received: from mail-yk0-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176]:44207) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMy5S-0008M8-Uu for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:09:39 -0400 Received: by mail-yk0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 19so18679760ykq.7 for <16967@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=QOYSWiAjNP5ZuJIlUR0Y7UcfjmlGIlSd9m/ofETDviw=; b=OzP8juMs/3C5Ii4VPeMfNVoBssrqY2bsP72V4yGhnVM8sAEgTowtzBzJXCSpcIu9LK qmhtnyfsI2PvUWlEq9qDQEfQAaxlbKJFjtaV1821VIMorVxOYQXZodoTeRIS/03LlMN2 53oHUnHgpqkmbi2USUnlKVrStP6VFv2+rlbUMWnGAeGpqVazV1PJOjIEpTqxLMXtwaG3 jfeqMxorbNjScu+wf7RAkJtCT1YjT+tjRWTPB6DojTwJ/Bb0pA7Q/sNm5nEoY4snTAV1 qzORnWIoLiD3N/Cebxpx+1WK1fJ3RpMH5ng9EL59GROXBavv2YyIMMbUZtWCLlAYQNqT yvYQ== X-Received: by 10.236.159.65 with SMTP id r41mr44235902yhk.20.1394449778368; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.163.3 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 04:08:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:08:58 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:32 AM, martin rudalics wrote: > I checked in a fix in revision 116716. With that I can't see the > problem any more. Can you? No, but it has a much bigger problem: emacs -Q --eval "(make-frame '((visibility . nil)))" and you end with two visible frames. I think we're rehashing part of bug#14841's thread. From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.13944519588142 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:46:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 11:45:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58751 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMyeb-00027D-OJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:45:58 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:59588) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMyeZ-000274-9W for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:45:56 -0400 Received: from [178.190.166.7] ([178.190.166.7]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LqALY-1WredO0zdg-00dq37; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:45:54 +0100 Message-ID: <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:45:49 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ts/I4/rKTG9KSK/4LxgBmq0KosDodpGn7aM0oksRWUtGHEzBLds ZgPMNrZ14AAe9+R//7FZ4oD2FprW66H222ui9L0HaKnfk2NhUQHmOwpt0d6rU9sXTT47nMu u74IAL/331WlVURiDBD5HFOyN27BtYVJ+8I54+mak+ncwJvTNCLz3j/MjRQXbaQo0vxVwSJ DRvjhAZdv8wUp5EPG67yw== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) >> I checked in a fix in revision 116716. With that I can't see the >> problem any more. Can you? > > No, but it has a much bigger problem: > > emacs -Q --eval "(make-frame '((visibility . nil)))" > > and you end with two visible frames. > > I think we're rehashing part of bug#14841's thread. When we get a SIZE_RESTORED message we have to make the frame visible. Do you see another way? martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:41:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139445524014387 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:41:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 12:40:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58775 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMzVX-0003jx-FC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:40:39 -0400 Received: from mail-yh0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]:40341) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMzVT-0003jn-Ho for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:40:36 -0400 Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b6so6894245yha.16 for <16967@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 05:40:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=mephnLPO/c9RMOsyMEXiqyoldJ09Z9eyAi/JsIfMRwk=; b=w29rgZ1osIGQTpbB8h7ZM1zhWNnHrwVCxWDi5Oq5kxEXTpSDDISOxVVFlqdWUM4oa6 1UslaXebxPtz+5/P7vp4g1iitqGqEpAOvZylPhC3q4c4t7pavTRDPwS7If/xqoNCFqM0 BhCZl/0hLU5kBPC9AQvImMAGgXl8p7XoURnSJdOhGf8EasWyVBNLT4mALckaKeUi/hub tnbVL1OhllyAxfwKL1UDfOz6uXvsfiwxFigpiHrcPf8iuYorjKPDaLHnK4s1F7FwaBMt tq2YFqEuW7YxWjZppFZL8E8w7TTMwd8/YQmL8XjvYUJEBNgHMPbn3n9ikGi2EbuvkDIp iZDQ== X-Received: by 10.236.23.71 with SMTP id u47mr261961yhu.143.1394455234915; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 05:40:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.163.3 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 05:39:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:39:54 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM, martin rudalics wrote: > When we get a SIZE_RESTORED message we have to make the frame visible. Well, yeah, no. I don't know why an invisible frame gets a SIZE_RESTORED message, but as long as Emacs thinks it's invisible, no, it shouldn't be made visible. The WM is at the service of Emacs, not the other way around. Or are you saying that you find acceptable being unable to make an invisible frame? From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:12:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139445708717967 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:12:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 13:11:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58784 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMzzK-0004fh-Dc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:11:27 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:51665) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMzzG-0004fV-W0 for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:11:24 -0400 Received: from [88.117.80.119] ([88.117.80.119]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MPqtK-1WJ8Mk08Wo-0053qC; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:11:20 +0100 Message-ID: <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:11:15 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:QJCg8eM/Jfos9MgEfn1QZuFXcs3zIxMkqbGqLn6K8hFg4C9NxPR LaSLAKgdLWDEJvsQjc1jBRJRrAjaK2AS4v7dw+NOBhLmFFeGaDuHBxf+asAutlda7TmnSMM XLOL0Wh+Drjl2/ceIJuU9C8wFg7VbQDF2CfX03W2PeaZFsofzEfJs6/3CwJOz5ZM9rMzlQZ mYN3ublf/pQLIBPt2RFcQ== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) >> When we get a SIZE_RESTORED message we have to make the frame visible. > > Well, yeah, no. I don't know why an invisible frame gets a > SIZE_RESTORED message, but as long as Emacs thinks it's invisible, no, > it shouldn't be made visible. The WM is at the service of Emacs, not > the other way around. No. But the `make-frame' in (let* ((c (selected-frame)) (f (make-frame))) (sit-for 0) (select-frame-set-input-focus f) (sit-for 0) (delete-frame c)) should create a normally visible frame f. The fact that this frame has its visibility set to zero at the time you `delete-frame' c indicates that we have a pretty awful bug. The implications of this are substantial because SET_FRAME_VISIBLE has to redisplay_other_windows and if that is not done, the consequences are not restricted to the toy scenario you gave. Lately I frequently noticed that an Emacs frame that was for some time hidden by other applications and subsequently became exposed by deleting their windows was not redrawn and I would like to know whether this was the reason. ISTR that others noted the same or a similar misbehavior. > Or are you saying that you find acceptable being unable to make an > invisible frame? No. But we apparently have the problem that Emacs on Windows thinks that a frame is invisible although it isn't. And we have to find out where this notion of invisibility gets introduced - maybe it's easy to spot it, maybe, likely it's part of my pixelwise changes, and we can withdraw my "fix" soon. But till then we have to live with the situation that on Windows invisible Emacs frames are visible :-( martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139446295330656 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:50:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 14:49:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60413 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN1Vw-0007yO-UN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:49:13 -0400 Received: from mail-yh0-f41.google.com ([209.85.213.41]:54530) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN1Vu-0007yF-BB for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:49:11 -0400 Received: by mail-yh0-f41.google.com with SMTP id v1so2512904yhn.0 for <16967@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=bCbx7WfbC4ExKt+3+nVIRtZK+l1Wh/87E301Q00Wo4U=; b=Xpu1ZQN2SjtLxH9GEOvDA3W8Nz3kyfV59gBI+wGwk2U8iRSCtJPzNObIaIJ7z6+WKo RYaAEgQCDO0NKDBC9/7enoy1p8kUiKqqyUAFQrk26/RzVblOARkB6rQ9t6W9cfW0+XC6 zRWsvxJyYzSvLJJtQ8pS2la6h3uu5/SF+a1l6PqHmDyovBLa4geytdAk6W3DyQv9b6KT qBOmVq0nf4Fz2ot2Z0AbN08Woy0Nm2MW7wyyDX6odIiKRoB8BvcAX94bYbLFWY/D7Au7 xW9O1W8GLQD4q6zifeIFt6lMfCLfKutJ3tmF0x+XjV9tpxE5Ah9ccr87Xm1PvAnWHDxQ +RIg== X-Received: by 10.236.101.18 with SMTP id a18mr45306056yhg.65.1394462949529; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.163.3 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:48:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:48:29 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, martin rudalics wrote: > should create a normally visible frame f. The fact that this frame has > its visibility set to zero at the time you `delete-frame' c indicates > that we have a pretty awful bug. Yes > The implications of this are > substantial because SET_FRAME_VISIBLE has to redisplay_other_windows and > if that is not done, the consequences are not restricted to the toy > scenario you gave. I don't know what "toy scenario" are you refering to, but certainly emacs -Q M-: (make-frame '((visibility))) is not a toy scenario *at all*. For one, it will prevent frameset-restore to restore invisible frames (I could work around it, but it'll be a hack). > No. But we apparently have the problem that Emacs on Windows thinks > that a frame is invisible although it isn't. And we have to find out > where this notion of invisibility gets introduced - maybe it's easy to > spot it, maybe, likely it's part of my pixelwise changes, and we can > withdraw my "fix" soon. I think bug#14841 is a clue that the visibility mismatch between Emacs and the Windows wm predates your pixelwise changes. > But till then we have to live with the > situation that on Windows invisible Emacs frames are visible :-( I would certainly prefer that you reverted your last change. You're fixing an occasional problem and introducing a perfectly repeatable one. J From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:05:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139447827032380 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:05:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 19:04:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60580 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5Uz-0008Q9-GX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:04:29 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:60795) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN5Uv-0008Py-BH for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:04:26 -0400 Received: from [91.113.3.213] ([91.113.3.213]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MY7ZA-1WjCsA4Bcm-00UuTT; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:04:23 +0100 Message-ID: <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:04:18 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:b+Pb+ZHmInowC/gbyUh5awZ8OmzmjXvD9ifbgQFG7cfZyfa3ZVM 7ffSxCwyvfuM1RTcNfam71TwxlckWFcLtWFeZ69lv1lK/vM2EoiY+foTR4uQXgABbH/OJ27 O4IngMNYa9AA7BSimXNIAyLUWTJeR2cfs8+5TX2uDC2MJyhDkMBuScvnWVCnG5BJGURvQkA zR+zgV7d2q7Bt+9owiQDg== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) >> should create a normally visible frame f. The fact that this frame has >> its visibility set to zero at the time you `delete-frame' c indicates >> that we have a pretty awful bug. > > Yes Really? I was just starting to think otherwise. >> The implications of this are >> substantial because SET_FRAME_VISIBLE has to redisplay_other_windows and >> if that is not done, the consequences are not restricted to the toy >> scenario you gave. > > I don't know what "toy scenario" are you refering to, The one of this bug report which IIUC even you consider "an occasional problem" ;-) > but certainly > > emacs -Q > M-: (make-frame '((visibility))) > > is not a toy scenario *at all*. For one, it will prevent > frameset-restore to restore invisible frames (I could work around it, > but it'll be a hack). OK. Then I have a motivation to revert it. >> No. But we apparently have the problem that Emacs on Windows thinks >> that a frame is invisible although it isn't. And we have to find out >> where this notion of invisibility gets introduced - maybe it's easy to >> spot it, maybe, likely it's part of my pixelwise changes, and we can >> withdraw my "fix" soon. > > I think bug#14841 is a clue that the visibility mismatch between Emacs > and the Windows wm predates your pixelwise changes. I think that I misjudged the severity of the problem. Drew's latest reports hint at some mysterious behavior which I haven't been able to understand yet so I'm suspecting potential culprits around every corner. > I would certainly prefer that you reverted your last change. Done. > You're > fixing an occasional problem and introducing a perfectly repeatable > one. Sorry for the inconvenience. martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:19:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139448633115544 (code B ref 16967); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:19:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2014 21:18:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60619 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN7b0-00042d-Mo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:18:51 -0400 Received: from mail-yh0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52]:47517) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WN7ay-00042V-P4 for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:18:49 -0400 Received: by mail-yh0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c41so1138404yho.25 for <16967@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:18:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=dGtbTJMbj44GiBSA/TwPl1Ntxr7PKwT75ik57C0+NwM=; b=kil4ZT2sSnTwiY9rfZ0wuM2Be5oRTkYMSC1M0L6Oy49B931sqzYbmnzzsd1iMjL8YT k60u6mPlIb2z+sOBcBDUKWxVWj+qHEKpmGHid74Dzj1HcVWtBhxdIjmQOQQrQD5Ftj+U AsPBXSRleg37KIbTQ/80GJuKkiWeCyCmzJS4YcTtiCwcX90wYKcfaGmbMs9EJlfMaeY5 TjS7DPOAkiw6K4U+51uDYC7uJVah/ctyK1ipHWhMbuC1MROtVOXJ8/BFxMitewq0socD 60WVYo8RLqc4Fe7HWpD7CDp0Y0G1IPism/DaicYtSppcs73u7foan9yXavqLGjxlkW6I xnRA== X-Received: by 10.236.136.231 with SMTP id w67mr48188688yhi.53.1394486328176; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:18:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.163.3 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:18:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:04 PM, martin rudalics wrote: > Really? I was just starting to think otherwise. ? > Done. Thanks. > Sorry for the inconvenience. Sorry if I was whiny, it was entirely unintentional. I'm grateful for your effort fixing these hard bugs. From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: Juanma Barranquero , 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139450167611754 (code B ref 16967); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:35:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2014 01:34:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60716 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNBaV-00033V-Pv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:36 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:30587) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNBaT-00033N-3S for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:33 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFMCppy/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFMCppy/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="51261180" Received: from 76-10-154-114.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.154.114]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 Mar 2014 21:34:05 -0400 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9C49660178; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:33:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:33:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:11:15 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > Lately I frequently noticed that an Emacs frame that was for some time > hidden by other applications and subsequently became exposed by deleting > their windows was not redrawn and I would like to know whether this was > the reason. ISTR that others noted the same or a similar misbehavior. My "redisplay bit" changes of a few months back introduced such bugs. I haven't seen such problems for a while now, so I think I've caught all the problems, but maybe I still missed some. Part of the change is that previously iconified/invisible frames where redisplayed right away (i.e. their glyph matrices were kept up-to-date), whereas now they're not. Which means that when they're uniconified or made visible, we have to first set windows_or_buffers_changed to REDISPLAY_SOME, to make sure that the subsequent redisplay doesn't forget to look at them. Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:08:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139452525423601 (code B ref 16967); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:08:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2014 08:07:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60832 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNHin-00068b-1w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:07:33 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:63580) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNHij-00068R-M1 for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:07:30 -0400 Received: from [62.47.255.54] ([62.47.255.54]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MRFwV-1Wk57R2TCZ-00UYKp; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:07:26 +0100 Message-ID: <531EC439.7050803@gmx.at> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:07:21 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:1izUDTwO2fIlbWuKH4GeIJ553KgJVXYnOhp9iwzoIuteMFfVuiR azyvobf7DbTCC1GGBtkV7bsFZ5JCoanQKRYZYL+eqBRUsxYKCrrPZy2bXLu8DtWonR+Oxeh pj0W2OLEsw8NL0s1O0G+9TZjkkloUP79v+INh9KqNc1XFdfpHxRQtu/1dgZe0avsq0tJt4Z +pKL9Iv2Z0gFJ33HBuTqg== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) >> Really? I was just starting to think otherwise. > > ? Earlier in this thread I wrote that ... > The fact that this frame has its visibility set to zero at the time > you `delete-frame' c indicates that we have a pretty awful bug. ... and you agreed by saying ... > The fact that this frame has > > its visibility set to zero at the time you `delete-frame' c indicates > > that we have a pretty awful bug. > Yes ... to which I replied ... > >> The fact that this frame has > >> its visibility set to zero at the time you `delete-frame' c indicates > >> that we have a pretty awful bug. > > > > Yes > > Really? I was just starting to think otherwise. ... so I was doubting that you really agreed with my judgment of this bug. Anyway, the current state of things is IMHO just as bad as it was at the time you started to write the report for bug 14841. In particular, the frame.h hack you mention in that thread /* Nonzero if the frame is currently displayed; we check it to see if we should bother updating the frame's contents. On ttys and on Windows NT/9X, to avoid wasting effort updating visible frames that are actually completely obscured by other windows on the display, we bend the meaning of visible slightly: if equal to 2, then the frame is obscured - we still consider it to be "visible" as seen from lisp, but we don't bother updating it. */ unsigned visible : 2; is likely responsible for the fact that Emacs doesn't always redisplay a frame when I remove the window of another application obscuring it. I'm still convinced that we should call SET_FRAME_VISIBLE, at least when f->visible equals 2, in SIZE_RESTORED. But I'm also convinced that allowing a value of 2 was bad karma in the first place. So I see no other way but reconsidering this design from scratch :-( BTW: The more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that implementing frame parameters on top of the old frame infrastructure was one of the worst design ideas ever. martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:08:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Monnier Cc: Juanma Barranquero , 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139452526723627 (code B ref 16967); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:08:03 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2014 08:07:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60835 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNHj0-000690-1W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:07:46 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:54650) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNHiy-00068s-3Z for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:07:44 -0400 Received: from [62.47.255.54] ([62.47.255.54]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LvENG-1XMA5E3D3C-010NY4; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:07:42 +0100 Message-ID: <531EC448.3050109@gmx.at> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:07:36 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:yfL4eW13x1RkWq0yh8b3ut+sUWYskYo+e8sg9kWSPFFkNr4UyJU aduuGVLkRjD9VjiMpI3DaTUbnmPDXg7sSnV95YeykgdZjwTG4UNbClb+UbG/fRm9urYxdZH 1D5YV/KygW8vGb4cxfhm/Thr3dya/xM5KARdr6DqgPN3CGpbdxAn/JBkKfnyUZmaxYRHbEe OKTpo8Wpg7Nt3gwoW5Psw== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) >> Lately I frequently noticed that an Emacs frame that was for some time >> hidden by other applications and subsequently became exposed by deleting >> their windows was not redrawn and I would like to know whether this was >> the reason. ISTR that others noted the same or a similar misbehavior. > > My "redisplay bit" changes of a few months back introduced such bugs. > I haven't seen such problems for a while now, so I think I've caught all > the problems, but maybe I still missed some. > > Part of the change is that previously iconified/invisible frames where > redisplayed right away (i.e. their glyph matrices were kept up-to-date), > whereas now they're not. Which means that when they're uniconified or > made visible, we have to first set windows_or_buffers_changed to > REDISPLAY_SOME, to make sure that the subsequent redisplay doesn't > forget to look at them. In all cases I observed this, the Emacs frame was neither invisible nor iconified before, hence there was no uniconifying or making it visible involved. And since I don't recall observing this problem on GNU/Linux, I'm quite convinced that it's merely Emacs mishandling frames obscured for some time on Windows. martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:15:04 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139457246528441 (code B ref 16967); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:15:04 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2014 21:14:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33623 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNU0G-0007Of-TY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:14:25 -0400 Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175]:43538) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNU0E-0007OU-7o for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:14:23 -0400 Received: by mail-yk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 131so24674300ykp.6 for <16967@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:14:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=BAszaD32tp3z5bJPw2bvLFySc/6NnCRUJhR3cdQdGfI=; b=vrWqe1X6C37AZnx9Fo9YJgupxSR6obI/ME7mYIlxdRSu2S3IHqnAQXfDN371jRvRQF oYn8G2cXJpJLvrz6HIRN2/gQRd2r3oq8mOnf7lR2cWdtUQ8nDj2XMaN8ceIuS+PBQVwl 361Yx4iniLKAcki29+O38316LlQ14R9fLb2FqpL+SyX3AE4DJSFD9MI7fXZNstG4UBPA w2UxgfrQbVHVeCudUBtKz/VL3Ri+zYxf424mFA/TiK3/2in9pSi65T08tGx4Wy2HyRdf GQbcGxoarxulgsz8XU75GoSYB0d8n5JX305yqbO9/wisWaFV/GzjwKApQsMvf61KKlIO ehUA== X-Received: by 10.236.101.18 with SMTP id a18mr55979500yhg.65.1394572461625; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:14:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.163.3 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:13:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <531EC439.7050803@gmx.at> References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> <531EC439.7050803@gmx.at> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:13:40 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:07 AM, martin rudalics wrote: > ... so I was doubting that you really agreed with my judgment of this > bug. It would be hard to deny that there are nasty bugs related to frames and the Windows wm. So yes, I agree with your judgment. > BTW: The more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that implementing > frame parameters on top of the old frame infrastructure was one of the > worst design ideas ever. :-) From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:07:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: Juanma Barranquero , 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139463318131258 (code B ref 16967); Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:07:01 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Mar 2014 14:06:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34695 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNjnY-000885-VH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:06:21 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:35250) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNjnX-00087y-Cy for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:06:19 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABK/CFFMCppy/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAScvIwULCzQSFBgNEAETiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IPAS-Result: Av8EABK/CFFMCppy/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAScvIwULCzQSFBgNEAETiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="51455613" Received: from 76-10-154-114.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.154.114]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 12 Mar 2014 10:06:18 -0400 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 7B6A86057F; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:06:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> <531EC439.7050803@gmx.at> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:06:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <531EC439.7050803@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:07:21 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > /* Nonzero if the frame is currently displayed; we check > it to see if we should bother updating the frame's contents. > On ttys and on Windows NT/9X, to avoid wasting effort updating > visible frames that are actually completely obscured by other > windows on the display, we bend the meaning of visible slightly: > if equal to 2, then the frame is obscured - we still consider > it to be "visible" as seen from lisp, but we don't bother > updating it. */ > unsigned visible : 2; Hmm... I didn't realize this "visible=2" is also used in the Windows GUI. So maybe the "visible=2" case under Windows is indeed mishandled by the "redisplay bit" code. Or by some other part of the code. At least frame.h does: SET_FRAME_VISIBLE (struct frame *f, int v) { eassert (0 <= v && v <= 2); if (v == 1 && f->visible != 1) redisplay_other_windows (); f->visible = v; } so it should handle the w32 case correctly. > is likely responsible for the fact that Emacs doesn't always redisplay a > frame when I remove the window of another application obscuring it. I'm > still convinced that we should call SET_FRAME_VISIBLE, at least when > f->visible equals 2, in SIZE_RESTORED. I'm not sure what SIZE_RESTORED is for, but indeed when we receive a size-change notification, the "visible=2" optimization might not be valid any more so we should set it back to 1. And we should probably also set it back to 1 when we receive expose events on that frame. But I'm generally clueless about GUI code, and even more clueless about w32, so please don't take my word for it. > BTW: The more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that implementing > frame parameters on top of the old frame infrastructure was one of the > worst design ideas ever. I have no idea what this is referring to. Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Monnier Cc: Juanma Barranquero , 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.139479672721439 (code B ref 16967); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:33:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Mar 2014 11:32:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36503 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WOQLO-0005Zj-V7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:32:07 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:53998) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WOQLL-0005ZU-9f for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:32:04 -0400 Received: from [93.82.10.128] ([93.82.10.128]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MIQlv-1WRRoG2Um7-004AYB; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:31:59 +0100 Message-ID: <5322E8AD.3060900@gmx.at> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:31:57 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> <531EC439.7050803@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:M/9QyMMlOMkn2OgYmof7WBulKKTl23VAEXyLq61j4dJz8NWOnWs x/7CiRJD7CG+HA0k2RCozyDXx5tRr5RPR1gVnUyriLeXxryFFHtxnH4JuT3y4pOSuTWI2ka UQOK5B3qnKkQ73w/gfmQBbfDONDDSCO9suhsX9ZPOLVzZ6IYQ7Hh5gNDPPPdwFG8QtFwMft ERT29LEHamm5NKjMTWvcA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) > Hmm... I didn't realize this "visible=2" is also used in the Windows GUI. > So maybe the "visible=2" case under Windows is indeed mishandled by the > "redisplay bit" code. Or by some other part of the code. If a frame is obscured (has visible=2) and we get a SIZE_RESTORED message for it, we probably should do some redisplay stuff but I'm not sure whether either redisplay_other_windows or SET_FRAME_GARBAGED does accomplish something the other doesn't. However, soon after I removed the conditioning on `iconified' I got my usualy "non-redrawing a previously obscured frame" behavior and decided that my cure wasn't useful anyway. > I'm not sure what SIZE_RESTORED is for, but indeed when we receive > a size-change notification, the "visible=2" optimization might not be > valid any more so we should set it back to 1. > > And we should probably also set it back to 1 when we receive expose > events on that frame. > > But I'm generally clueless about GUI code, and even more clueless about > w32, so please don't take my word for it. As explained above, I haven't been able to stop the indecent behavior of obscured frames I observed with an even more radical approach, so I'm clueless as well. >> BTW: The more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that implementing >> frame parameters on top of the old frame infrastructure was one of the >> worst design ideas ever. > > I have no idea what this is referring to. In the case at hand it refers to the fact that when searching for the cause of some strange behavior of frame visibility, it's not sufficient to grep just for `make-frame-visible'. You also have to spot things like (set-frame-parameter frame 'visibility t) and maybe all occurrences of `modify-frame-parameters' and `modify-all-frames-parameters'. Obviously searching for 'visibility only is more efficient but this will fail miserably with more mundane words like `right' or `left'. So the introduction of frame parametes often multiplies the effort necessary to find the cause of frame related bugs. martin From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#16967: frame related race condition Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: Juanma Barranquero , 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 16967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16967.13948039413056 (code B ref 16967); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:33:02 +0000 Received: (at 16967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Mar 2014 13:32:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36560 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WOSDk-0000nC-70 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:32:20 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:40335) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WOSDd-0000mx-5c for 16967@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:32:13 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFMCppy/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFMCppy/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="52067520" Received: from 76-10-154-114.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([76.10.154.114]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 14 Mar 2014 09:32:12 -0400 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 49C86AE1F9; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:32:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <531D8028.8020807@gmx.at> <531D94CB.7020704@gmx.at> <531DA5ED.6090601@gmx.at> <531DB9F3.2030508@gmx.at> <531E0CB2.3070609@gmx.at> <531EC439.7050803@gmx.at> <5322E8AD.3060900@gmx.at> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:32:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5322E8AD.3060900@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:31:57 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > If a frame is obscured (has visible=2) and we get a SIZE_RESTORED > message for it, we probably should do some redisplay stuff but I'm not > sure whether either redisplay_other_windows or SET_FRAME_GARBAGED does > accomplish something the other doesn't. redisplay_other_windows only tells Emacs that the next redisplay will need to loop through all windows to see which ones need to be redisplayed. Without it, Emacs will only try to redisplay selected-window. SET_FRAME_GARBAGED tells Emacs that this frame needs to be redrawn. It calls redisplay_other_windows unconditionally. > However, soon after I removed the conditioning on `iconified' I got my > usually "non-redrawing a previously obscured frame" behavior and > decided that my cure wasn't useful anyway. Presumably, un-obscuring a frame shouldn't trigger any SIZE_RESTORED thingy since the size is unaffected, right? >> And we should probably also set it back to 1 when we receive expose >> events on that frame. Can you try to do this? >>> BTW: The more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that implementing >>> frame parameters on top of the old frame infrastructure was one of the >>> worst design ideas ever. >> I have no idea what this is referring to. > In the case at hand it refers to the fact that when searching for the > cause of some strange behavior of frame visibility, it's not sufficient > to grep just for `make-frame-visible'. Oh, that. Yes, I'm not very happy with the use of frame-parameters to affect "internal" frame properties. It has never *really* bothered me, but it seems like asking for trouble. Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 16 22:48:51 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Juanma Barranquero Subject: bug#16967: closed (Re: bug#16967: frame related race condition) Message-ID: References: X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 16967 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs Reply-To: 16967@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 01:49:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1569980942-20822-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1569980942-20822-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #16967: frame related race condition which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 16967@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 16967: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D16967 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1569980942-20822-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 16967-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Oct 2019 01:48:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35245 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iFTkl-0005P2-7p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 21:48:31 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:38913) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iFTkj-0005Oo-FY for 16967-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 21:48:30 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f173.google.com with SMTP id n7so24297026qtb.6 for <16967-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 18:48:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KEXIVqOfPrkDdzhCbu0n/wrVbErh0ikFErO0OQruqEo=; b=j5JJuxg6nfCv+DLKVSNwxXPINk5se4ic7aeEWXQfo1dnu/mcfbUGcoSscYbIEeIbTp H7RLB/I0DF0F8sjZ+z4JL4noIoPKJcaYpdDc7XeZUr6ypFznX+4oI/p0w75NroSayXpX et4qk6xzRLGCiA2MnluhlBvChAuHkXyvjfOaUU8JpEoQE1A84elKKu26rTgtbZP+REtG yVHauBmLFAq4LilgcZ+ZREjD+IdapOCVapu/agTnJ9k8iS1TbiJRKaDw1qyq20oI9z4U re5wLe1ldF+w77KCv5izeK0luftu0VnXng/IYQxytSVlaaAnlBdX/2HwyYfqxuff7TEd TtDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KEXIVqOfPrkDdzhCbu0n/wrVbErh0ikFErO0OQruqEo=; b=Tf0d3927mlHnBv06r8iL8d5F1pGX1VU9YDMcZrj5ZEbmAKV4DwYTs2Bb9yU2oAOO9B Rjmh2OM9CoP9KSGnCA8G8/D9K1uzxYhjbW4qVPGjc7FhNnad+5dZ1kcCffkrjPsTE0Lt BYBZaR8Bpqdv0h7N/nws85IDE/Uxk6rx18ttO78sm3ebY+qybPAUKHAOYNZUBboUfF9o NIrwkSyijoJV9Dd9+2j9SYfBEKO4sAnyquKZTyZZdv6Z0CKk4ZDCYGsN2d/sJfFbQstW 7Qz3Vep1eHHGhvf6trMyV4yA8nvKk3fEZ/CaMXEruMS2A9at6tXRhPsvJXS7doIVIiYL 8rjg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUxx1dadHnBN4f7bnMRDYHqlW0MRNFRu/JK23sNCWbhm6l/WeLI 8hnct+5AyTKMQ0UHyrvt1+/YrPXortgOdJCYba8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxrzl9H0DCo30I/bnF7V/bCMdF2/URdR7aMq8T3/73Sjlja2hBgt3NnjWeJ2W94t7kin/YQpWPiaWOgaNA0DSk= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4504:: with SMTP id q4mr1612485qtn.354.1569980903732; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 18:48:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 03:47:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#16967: frame related race condition To: martin rudalics Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000123b3d0593e3aa2e" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16967-done Cc: 16967-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --000000000000123b3d0593e3aa2e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Though the thread was inconclusive, the bug was likely fixed by subsequent changes by Martin and does not happen with the current trunk, so I'm closing this one. --000000000000123b3d0593e3aa2e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Though the thread was inconclusive,=C2=A0 the bug was like= ly fixed by subsequent changes by Martin and does not happen with the curre= nt trunk, so I'm closing this one.

--000000000000123b3d0593e3aa2e-- ------------=_1569980942-20822-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2014 16:20:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56725 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJzD-0007IQ-08 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:31 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34110) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJzA-0007II-Ra for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz9-0007LL-Ct for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:38742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz9-0007L3-8V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:27 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35831) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz8-0008UB-5n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz7-0007Kl-6v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:26 -0500 Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]:47596) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WMJz6-0007Ka-Ra for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:20:24 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 9so14336218ykp.1 for ; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 08:20:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Jh7opoKW4v+Qs7ZZi8EBeYcHBFw7MNVRAPatDRPr38c=; b=mpw8jn0oqqtQviGcp8DClx0OZ+B4aeMia+sX7JRD2Hpcet59TEkSRJYx9EHvQ5LcJK 8uu4UdC+5D4nDaiWBUsC+Lav8YZOILmzkH+91qv+33ztUOtCtQ3OtQMvw+R8bXLXerR2 DgCYuU2aYGFTANVMQMbMXHukhRFzpqJcIKul8xFncb3uMSsm49D2eky7V07XKZa1LR7V atyIsIpy1f3am9kCAFeeVho7L6bBepOVjcPjgz55KnmdDHrJV2ucxxUnudyULEWAhfbx JKvBarJBZDWz+iJMj6aiyScBCwwBVt8DZvvp2zJx7XJ/3AoWvVsGzlEth133kko7qV/5 eyQA== X-Received: by 10.236.36.16 with SMTP id v16mr41459yha.153.1394295624003; Sat, 08 Mar 2014 08:20:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.163.3 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 08:19:43 -0800 (PST) From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:19:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: frame related race condition To: Bug-Gnu-Emacs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Package: emacs Version: 24.3.50 emacs -Q then type this in *scratch* (let* ((c (selected-frame)) (f (make-frame))) (sit-for 0) (select-frame-set-input-focus f) (sit-for 0) (delete-frame c)) then evaluate the let repeteadly. It's not hard to get "let*: Attempt to delete the sole visible or iconified frame". ------------=_1569980942-20822-1--