GNU bug report logs -
#60585
30.0.50; global-text-scale-adjust shrinks window (was not before)
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 21/01/2023 12:08, martin rudalics wrote:
> > The previous scenarios (with one of the patches from the other bug
> > thread) had frame at "impair" size only after some resizings with the
> > mouse. For most sizes the frame ended up at "correct" sizes, but there
> > were relatively rare sizes where this was not the case.
>
> For reference let's try to stick to the last x_scale_font.diff patch I
> sent you. What was the "impair" size there?
According to https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=52493#332,
some impair sizes were 80x36 minus 1 in any dimension using the mouse.
> Note in all theses cases:
> The real size of a frame as it is displayed (or better cut off) by the
> WM is only reflected in our pixel sizes. The character sizes (including
> those displayed by GNOME) are just approximations which reflect the
> displayed sizes faithfully iff when multiplied by the character sizes
> they result in the corresponding pixel size.
Sure.
> > With your last patch here, however, the frame seemingly ended up at
> an "impair" size every time I resized it with the mouse.
>
> The present one or the one I sent you before?
The one from the message in this thread which I was responding to. File
called x_rest.diff.
> > With this patch 'emacs -Q' starts up at 32x6 columns/lines. :-)
> >
> > Very small window, that.
>
> "The Incredible Shrinking Frame"
>
> > Otherwise, the behavior seems pretty stable:
> >
> > - Repeated invocations of set-face-attribute don't change frame size,
> > - After resizing with the mouse, at some frame sizes
> set-face-attribute does cause one resize (e.g. at 80x30, according to
> GNOME), but most do not -- just like the older patch I referred to in
> the first paragraph.
>
> Please send me the *foo* transcript.
Sorry, forgot about it last time. So, with x_rest.diff, the attached
transcript is of:
1. Resizing the frame to 80x36 (according to GNOME).
2. Evaluating the set-face-attribute form twice.
3. Resizing the frame to 80x20 (per GNOME), which is 76x20 according to
our internal measurements.
4. Evaluating the set-face-attribute form twice again.
5. Resizing to 80x32.
6. Evaluating s-f-a twice again.
In this scenario, step 4 doesn't change the frame size. But if I skip
step 1, step 4 (evaluating s-f-a after resizing to 80x20) does change
the frame size. And step 6 (s-f-a at size 80x32) does not.
So it seems the history of size changes now (?) affects which sizes are
"impair".
Also, only height is important now: if height 20 is "impair", then I can
resize the frame to any width with this height, and evaling s-f-a will
shrink the frame in both dimensions by one char. Same for height 34 in
the alternative scenario.
[foo.txt (text/plain, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 205 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.