From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:24:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: Emacs Bugs Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.12769718412735 (code B ref -1); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:24:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 18:24:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2i0-0000i4-CP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:24:00 -0400 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2hy-0000hy-A9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:59 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:39106) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2ht-0002JB-Ay for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:53 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51417 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQ2hr-0005GE-RB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:52 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2hq-0001J9-Pw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:51 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f192.google.com ([209.85.211.192]:49088) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2hq-0001J3-Mw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:50 -0400 Received: by ywh30 with SMTP id 30so2085888ywh.24 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=gPH1tL/FcjEGwdDecCMYl4gQL0S64HX2EbOY3ZxlsLw=; b=foNvhWr9MwB1qGkGnFFnJYMuFIXRnRPKDU1ChjNYTmXg9iWTd8QWNTTnM2w2jUQJFS 7ojFjG6l49JLzquJpM9nawxSYE76zayXizOdJL8tP9fSn1fVIYbbNiBKVnVMqb07k10i kwKGhVDb+2IMVe5XICwwZeL+n8wflU0JXambQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=Vbc9gj1s9RD5PJ5P5Hf2OxMVI8+EfvcEEMzmfFnM86h1Lwkkso/eLYOH1rRuwXDv8a nL8sonXfctQyV8ysLJn/4ArpRV/vUEELz9hAOucgJcS0xnyc3BPRR7hlkQAGa+RXN8ki Tqr3V26udwIolM+comgpkNRrVCGCETbaPHskA= Received: by 10.101.135.25 with SMTP id m25mr2076054ann.58.1276971830136; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Lennart Borgman Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:23:29 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -4.6 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.6 (----) After struggling with the getting raise-frame to workaround the current problems with raise-frame I gave up. There are a couple of problems so I am not sure where to begin. I think the basic problem is that there is no hook so you can be sure when a call to raise-frame (and other frame functions) will work after frame creation. Since part of the frame creation as I understand it is done asynchronously be the OS/window manager I think this is a really basic need to get Emacs to work. But I tried to do the raise-frame in a hook to and that does not work either in all situations and I am not quite sure why. One problem is that the system API calls currently is not checked and partly in bad order. Here is the relevant part from w32fns.c: case WM_EMACS_SETFOREGROUND: { HWND foreground_window; DWORD foreground_thread, retval; /* On NT 5.0, and apparently Windows 98, it is necessary to attach to the thread that currently has focus in order to pull the focus away from it. */ foreground_window = GetForegroundWindow (); foreground_thread = GetWindowThreadProcessId (foreground_window, NULL); if (!foreground_window || foreground_thread == GetCurrentThreadId () || !AttachThreadInput (GetCurrentThreadId (), foreground_thread, TRUE)) foreground_thread = 0; retval = SetForegroundWindow ((HWND) wParam); /* Detach from the previous foreground thread. */ if (foreground_thread) AttachThreadInput (GetCurrentThreadId (), foreground_thread, FALSE); return retval; } The first call to GetWindowThreadProcessId should not be done if the call to GetForegroundWindow does not succeed. If there had been error checking this problem should have been detected long ago. I have suggested adding that but the answer so far has not been positive. In my opinion this is a huge waste of time. (I can surely add this to my patched version but in the current situation where I unfortunately have to keep a lot of bug fixes in my code it costs my just too much time.) Next problem is that if foreground_window is not 0 then the value of foreground_thread will be erased if do not misunderstand the C priorities. Can someone please confirm/disconfirm this? From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:37:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.12769725833131 (code B ref 6468); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:37:01 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 18:36:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2ty-0000oS-E0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:36:22 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.153]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2tw-0000oK-9t for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:36:21 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so523127fgb.15 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:36:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=6C+x0NQkrsSa4DLpqNBH1hAo1zUNj2pSUxqaWC1QFXM=; b=X9mKrAJilw6fbVptPX1r7XbMAYfcsMkrSLAv5yTLasQ3IfoxDEpD5gtQiUhRjqs9IT 2Z/Yx52vQtMaRSeCdi3fLhjogD/cyU3fynpv+4qEGFfHSdnERIb7M7tvyGI+fg/OKe5U CWRZkM/RlRITgaaghpDz3LxKnhBm1LxqfXRiw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=RaZXjKr3v+siAZfiCOxAIul5vOa19KRCLPVFGxgitqUyDxfP42eXi8ShGhoaCCrQDW u/WXcEy7O20R+3lNmTexEmSfbmSN51kN3S43wAKM8zxRgfpxJpvmDu/coOQPkzOlsI5t UNlSvwR5WLkOmPSRSU8Z5msQWrIFPOgvW06Go= Received: by 10.102.174.30 with SMTP id w30mr872667mue.57.1276972575264; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:36:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.32.5 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:35:55 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 20:23, Lennart Borgman wrote: > If there had been error checking this problem should have been > detected long ago. I have suggested adding that but the answer so far > has not been positive. You suggest littering the w32 sources with DebPrint calls (or ugly macro-equivalents). The thing to do is, now that you've found a case where not checking the result value is a bug, to fix the bug. Yes, adding lots of DebPrint would perhaps help to find such bugs; or perhaps it would generate so many useless warnings that would make it even harder... There has been no deluge of bug reports related to unchecked w32 syscalls that I am aware of. Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:16:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.12769749175739 (code B ref 6468); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:16:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 19:15:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ3Vc-0001UK-7o for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:15:16 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ3Va-0001Hq-EK for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:15:14 -0400 Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so1682938gyh.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=3aHqV35zQhdPB9lReeAyjwnlG4dHegKtVVkvk05SsU8=; b=JgGgF6wRqV9huhHeRQbfUiefZ/4818ZvUw4C3CmSoOAcyoC371vZVIS5RMnIzm+9oz SyNjjKaRQQokUPPrszUveDPn34JWdeRWBxuwzJBBXoFW9jJxR+jb/dtBniLCQiM0lViM t77Q/Dghg7t6Dr7jpkuldJSGbYql/TCP5g9ig= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=nob7PpyTEUd+Fwv4UrSxy++5jWPp9wmZBHqOPRFoTtk1J8YSrJI2+td0d6ze4yFdWP nArPmkVyM69Cavxo2XC1DJtalFZWijNR8VAw2Jy6/Zyo45T6S6dl1y54D0KRmVjlNAyu oqWeipSgpsEBynKXOuOO7U1Tr3Rfx4yyEgqCQ= Received: by 10.101.135.25 with SMTP id m25mr2105559ann.58.1276974909298; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:14:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:14:48 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 20:23, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> If there had been error checking this problem should have been >> detected long ago. I have suggested adding that but the answer so far >> has not been positive. > > You suggest littering the w32 sources with DebPrint calls (or ugly > macro-equivalents). The thing to do is, now that you've found a case > where not checking the result value is a bug, to fix the bug. > > Yes, adding lots of DebPrint would perhaps help to find such bugs; or > perhaps it would generate so many useless warnings that would make it > even harder... There has been no deluge of bug reports related to > unchecked w32 syscalls that I am aware of. I found this problem after adding the ugly macro-equivalent. And yes, the thing now is to try to fix it. But there are several things missing and I am a bit hesitating to address the problem since it costs me so much time discussing it. I can't afford that cost. However if you want to comment on the bad nesting here I would be glad. Do I misread it? From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:21:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.12769752516623 (code B ref 6468); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:21:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 19:20:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ3b0-0001im-JA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:20:50 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com ([209.85.161.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ3ay-0001ih-Kz for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:20:49 -0400 Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so1276357fxm.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:20:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=LHr+T7L+lMKf5O2ZK2QrsgsYRsgEdLMsucy5vC1zwOI=; b=Zs7BAq89NRV2jqH/U2/sQ6jOTUOfWFPeXb9icyOoMnjMDALYEXXVsgUr+Hu7IkGJLd tf7v+YS0Qtkj7cCQktrLBCUVclo0VRCBUeZb0QmkLZh/vK8JCRTccL+pE8i4vXv/iQt5 rlUHV6hIgYB3hb9Wg3QOHWowp3dJyzT/ugufk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=T588dNleDrIDc77EtYJUp4/x1XzR68YocfJdQBpccykaLgLdSVQNNBVkNaJ86yueIO WNc3HU91HGL3Adq5Ow/JY2BFKynoXAsVln7S5jLLZ4/Y/E9VctDoqGEj9V3GUoIjGYme xbr9h3vOQSnhv9lp23nE9MOS4ft8IjRxJc9hs= Received: by 10.102.7.12 with SMTP id 12mr883368mug.104.1276975243291; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:20:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.32.5 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:20:23 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 21:14, Lennart Borgman wrote: > I found this problem after adding the ugly macro-equivalent. It is called "debugging". Thanks for you work on this bug. > And yes, the thing now is to try to fix it. But there are several > things missing and I am a bit hesitating to address the problem since > it costs me so much time discussing it. I can't afford that cost. You seem to think that other people on these discusions have all the time of the world. Often, if you gave all the details, as precise as possible, from the beginning, everyone involved (including yourself) would save time. If you propose a change and it is not accepted because the interested parties do not understand what problem you're experiencing or cannot reproduce it because you have not provided detail enough to convince them that there is indeed a problem and your fix is sound... well, then, who's wasting who's time? > However if you want to comment on the bad nesting here I would be > glad. Do I misread it? I cannot comment. I don't see a reproducible recipe and a clear description in your report. Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.12769795668524 (code B ref 6468); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:33:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 20:32:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ4ib-0002DQ-NK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:32:45 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.211.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ4iZ-0002DL-Oo for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:32:44 -0400 Received: by ywh2 with SMTP id 2so2392461ywh.0 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QhS1MHe1efyws/WHI9GNx+HGiAmRBQgt1RYJ2cOT2X4=; b=WJ6vT49m7PLGoZwWCo6RZ+Sqz/OhzCmmuXba0Ipj3Q8iHjOBI0DSRGIVWjDwWPNt4r o8sdYwSDfFGiKhsiHTXt4HrfSt0IeSr8+emTKfoxUxYvxdWynxSZZUvYiZSFI9OE4ujh HdAk2C/STYI67ma2Owsvq6RtHjWn4nWesP9zU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=SkPAwNBCgucRxCifLQdrVlnNLgKZ9llwn7xgLAsoPqGRKgQNAxg6gdE3hnahyrBgwf cGjJibVAjEX1HUYCvJlvcBxeZAIUF+aWuIHLZByhZmu4sSvPTYc6EOq+8QlLsjaMli3H R+/M2yTXVnYx6zJuf76RywiU3fiVe2fImxIjo= Received: by 10.101.203.9 with SMTP id f9mr2386157anq.208.1276979559132; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:32:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:32:19 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Juanma Barranquero wrot= e: > > You seem to think that other people on these discusions have all the > time of the world. Often, if you gave all the details, as precise as > possible, from the beginning, everyone involved (including yourself) > would save time. I often do not have them. It is mostly not that kind of problem I am report= ing. > If you propose a change and it is not accepted > because the interested parties do not understand what problem you're > experiencing or cannot reproduce it because you have not provided > detail enough to convince them that there is indeed a problem and your > fix is sound... well, then, who's wasting who's time? Some problems, like the "jumping scrolling" seems hard to understand though I have given all logically necessary details. What do you want me to do then? >> However if you want to comment on the bad nesting here I would be >> glad. Do I misread it? > > I cannot comment. I don't see a reproducible recipe and a clear > description in your report. I have no recipe. I asked about the code. Was that unclear in some way? Please explain why then. I am asking about this part: foreground_window =3D GetForegroundWindow (); foreground_thread =3D GetWindowThreadProcessId (foreground_window, N= ULL); if (!foreground_window || foreground_thread =3D=3D GetCurrentThreadId () Does not the if clause mean that if foreground_wind is not 0 then the old value of foreground_thread will be erased? Or am I misreading this? > =C2=A0 =C2=A0Juanma > From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:52:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.12769806699382 (code B ref 6468); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:52:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 20:51:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ50O-0002RG-UR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:51:09 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com ([209.85.161.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ50M-0002Qk-CT for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:51:07 -0400 Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so1306243fxm.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:50:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OdopROZFY6W3LFeQSu0Ss/2j8p7EmqWApzN6w6LXZqE=; b=QCrPew3RS9c1T1rJ4maXSoIUk/TgvGzXofz3uQY1LPTC2kj4qW8Rbcja2RzOAE15Z9 XhgSAef8lLFe3WOhMfn3sz2K5TZx32rq9LAb/Q6I6b9Epf8estsMM2LomA+XMVOtKjjM QEZns9XXtpdur5MCqq/Hnv/5AnxjCDlubgbMY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=iz/WZ46yv7CQK35pYJ1upJ4YxTGLAmjs01gX0FXa7+oZM3gYzbqUyxxxi3J7kxPiNy q5mCRUOqJ2kxI9lKhGYZzP27SihxCnZxdiZZcODhl8O11k8zFO3lyr45LDGE29YX4vcJ KlzM32sYA6iyp4zEWT4YQGUxoildq9heesSsE= Received: by 10.102.17.3 with SMTP id 3mr925316muq.15.1276980658228; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:50:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.32.5 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:50:38 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 22:32, Lennart Borgman wrote: > I often do not have them. It is mostly not that kind of problem I am repo= rting. Then don't be surprised if other people, who does not see the problem, have even more trouble understanding what you're talking about. > Some problems, like the "jumping scrolling" seems hard to understand > though I have given all logically necessary details. Of course not. When you say that, and someone who knows a lot more than you about redisplay (Eli) asks you for clarification, the principle of parsimony suggests that either you have *not* given all logically necessary details, or you have *failed* at transmiting that information. > What do you want me to do then? Explain things again, more clearly, and help those that try to help you, instead of resorting to complains about people wasting your time. > I have no recipe. I asked about the code. Was that unclear in some > way? Please explain why then. I tend not to understand your messages very well. Let's start with this: "I think the basic problem is that there is no hook so you can be sure when a call to raise-frame (and other frame functions) will work after frame creation. Since part of the frame creation as I understand it is done asynchronously be the OS/window manager I think this is a really basic need to get Emacs to work." What does mean "get Emacs to work"? Emacs works, and quite well. Are you trying to say that not having some hook causes *you* trouble in some intended application? If so, could you please post an example of what you intend to do, and why is it not working? > I am asking about this part: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_window =3D GetForegroundWindow (); > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_thread =3D GetWindowThreadProcessId (fore= ground_window, NULL); > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (!foreground_window > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 || foreground_thread =3D=3D GetCurrent= ThreadId () > > Does not the if clause mean that if foreground_wind is not 0 then the > old value of foreground_thread will be erased? Or am I misreading > this? If foreground_window is 0, or foreground_thread is equal to the current thread's id, or the AttachThread call returns 0 then foreground_thread is set to 0 Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:51:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127698421210866 (code B ref 6468); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:51:01 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 21:50:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ5vY-0002pD-BY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:50:12 -0400 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ5vW-0002p8-3A for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:50:11 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L4A0080074RK800@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:49:18 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.178.198]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L4A005ES7A5TN80@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:49:18 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:47:16 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83ljaag0ez.fsf@gnu.org> References: X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) > From: Lennart Borgman > Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:23:29 +0200 > Cc: > > After struggling with the getting raise-frame to workaround the > current problems with raise-frame I gave up. There are a couple of > problems so I am not sure where to begin. Would you please describe the problem(s) you are talking about? How about a reproducible recipe for them? TIA From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:38:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127699063413628 (code B ref 6468); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:38:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 23:37:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ7b7-0003Xl-A6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:37:13 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ7b6-0003Xg-3O for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:37:12 -0400 Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so1761748gyh.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:37:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4Jkoz5SD+OB2DWXSYKSIgLHJL0tAroNCeL+hJQrGmzc=; b=jivURiqliPeBtBvE4AfpB+cdHsqGtd+4//dO0fk/J9h1HB49bGu55Uevgx+NnVbbKy 4D+VbALVJpve5aiPEWG9Jd047Gn4nVRaPyCFvYvnvOjW8KaquKspD8muN5gf1pMMqu6U FyH1Z1u1AzdO3q0guQHacrp3VWkiJFL+eriiM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=M6xXgLSc9UK1K9FuhSIh1N37jVk2gc2JrctGmMi9J0U893vArsrrj8Kg0k1zOW77so lImrK1C+GjSdzwJcmwyW8aGP0splWHWTC8oYcBxzNyE2mg/uNQ25464pXVBX8d4bR/kD oHWDcJk85hrHdsmXv0w1FCXtmTBgDlSPIv5yY= Received: by 10.100.244.32 with SMTP id r32mr2391969anh.28.1276990627204; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:37:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:36:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:36:47 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Juanma Barranquero wro= te: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 22:32, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> I often do not have them. It is mostly not that kind of problem I am rep= orting. > > Then don't be surprised if other people, who does not see the problem, > have even more trouble understanding what you're talking about. I am never surprised by that. When I am telling about a complicated problem I am merely asking for a starting point in the discussion. Have others seen similar problems? Do they have any guesses? Have they tried to investigate some part of the problem? >> Some problems, like the "jumping scrolling" seems hard to understand >> though I have given all logically necessary details. > > Of course not. When you say that, and someone who knows a lot more > than you about redisplay (Eli) asks you for clarification, the > principle of parsimony suggests that either you have *not* given all > logically necessary details, or you have *failed* at transmiting that > information. I seldom look into redisplay internals so I hope Eli knows it better. (I have done it a couple of times looking at certain bugs but I have not taken it up here I think.) This is not about the internals of redisplay. It is about the logic between narrow_to_region etc and redisplay. >> What do you want me to do then? > > Explain things again, more clearly, and help those that try to help > you, instead of resorting to complains about people wasting your time. I think both of us has tried the best we can but we have got stuck at this moment. I am saying that the best way to solve the problem is to think in those tracks I have described. I think Eli believes this is wrong. (And I think Eli believe what I am saying about the original problem is wrong.) Perhaps it would be good if someone from outside came in and tried to understand. But it does not help if you say that Eli understands the problem better. I am sure Eli understands the display engine better now, but it is only partly involved. (However understanding of it is anyway essential of course. I have tried to ask Eli relevant questions about the display engine.) >> I have no recipe. I asked about the code. Was that unclear in some >> way? Please explain why then. > > I tend not to understand your messages very well. Let's start with this: > > "I think the basic problem is that there is no hook so you can be sure > when a call to raise-frame (and other frame functions) will work after > frame creation. Since part of the frame creation as I understand it is > done asynchronously be the OS/window manager I think this is a really > basic need to get Emacs to work." (What happens below is expected. Either you have seen those kind of problems or not. It looks like you have not. For me this is just a normal progress of the discussion. Is it not that for you?) > What does mean "get Emacs to work"? I thought I wrote that in the paragraph above the one you cite but I have a real bad habit of not reading what I have written before sending. I have been trying to get a frame to become the foreground window in a certain situation but so far failed. There are many things involved so I am not sure of why it fails. And it does not always fail. I even believed I found out how to get it to work but after that it has always failed. I have tried the normal things like raise-frame, set-frame-select-input-focus, make-frame-visible, redisplay. And I have tried to do it in a timer. (I think when it worked I had a rather large timeout in the timer.) When doing some logging I have seen that the frame setup does not seem to be finished. The frame is created, the buffer I want to display is somehow tied to the frame, but it does not yet have a window. I have no idea whether this is a part of the problem I have or not. I do think the process (i.e. Emacs) has enough privileges in my case, but I am not sure how that kind of privilege works now since it was a long time ago I looked into that problem and MS tend to change things for this particular problem (to try to stop evil programs). > you trying to say that not having some hook causes *you* trouble in > some intended application? If so, could you please post an example of > what you intend to do, and why is it not working? Example? I try to open a new frame to edit a text area in Firefox using It's All Text. This calls emacsclient without wait (since otherwise it hangs Firefox). I have set server-raise-frame to nil since I want to create a special frame for editing and just raise that. If server-raise-frame is non-nil this will raise the current frame in Emacs instead. So now in server-window I just create a frame and try to raise that. And I can't get it to work. I have a variable pointing to the frame and it looks ok so I know it is the= re. >> I am asking about this part: >> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_window =3D GetForegroundWindow (); >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_thread =3D GetWindowThreadProcessId (for= eground_window, NULL); >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (!foreground_window >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 || foreground_thread =3D=3D GetCurren= tThreadId () >> >> Does not the if clause mean that if foreground_wind is not 0 then the >> old value of foreground_thread will be erased? Or am I misreading >> this? > > If foreground_window is 0, or Ah, shit. Thanks. (I am too unused to reading C code.) > =C2=A0 foreground_thread is equal to the current thread's id, or > =C2=A0 the AttachThread call returns 0 > then > =C2=A0 foreground_thread is set to 0 > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0Juanma > From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:00:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127699196114100 (code B ref 6468); Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:00:03 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 23:59:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ7wW-0003fN-MO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:59:20 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com ([209.85.161.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ7wU-0003fI-Lx for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:59:19 -0400 Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so1355052fxm.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:59:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=qoYD7uLH4WJrG4/v2kzhMRFfRwW+rqfhXOAmVvHHiEE=; b=kl+kHXt7gAu2BbbIFjvzt9IQq8IPDP7JCskCVNQmU/ho7cpeYPf8fVyPrx7BNdf/r/ Q1ivD+9eb0EBM77m/5jISlyHtuCQkJEhYF4puNSAyhFs8LgDTgZZpkloCLVx2bYJKioh hsGfhqMyGUogmfEXDEHHvgC/PQ6MIywxsgGxk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=CVh02iBeuYqJLO8tCccUXF6otszp5STa9l9ACUowjEhFzMCvI8xg75keAKZ20yVlK/ mNF10EBmWgCBxBXnA9GM8Ci5xkML5pzsh9GJcbOdAuABeazeOOweS0Me6wsIGGOwjpYq h9eHFJqegEic3j6N5XNCXiNblg8BERZ++4c4E= Received: by 10.102.15.22 with SMTP id 22mr986550muo.7.1276991954154; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:59:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.129 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:58:54 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 01:36, Lennart Borgman wrote: > I am never surprised by that. When I am telling about a complicated > problem I am merely asking for a starting point in the discussion. > Have others seen similar problems? Do they have any guesses? Have they > tried to investigate some part of the problem? IMHO, sometimes you fail to explain the problem to such a point that it is difficult for other people to know whether they have also experienced it. > This is not about the internals of redisplay. It is about the logic > between narrow_to_region etc and redisplay. I don't think Eli's knowledge is limited to the "internals of redisplay". > I think both of us has tried the best we can but we have got stuck at > this moment. That, I can understand. What I do not understand is that then you switch to accusing people of wasting your time, or not wanting your patches, or not wanting to take the trouble to understand, etc. etc. > But it does not help if you say that Eli understands the > problem better. I am sure Eli understands the display engine better > now, but it is only partly involved. Oh, it can be of help if it makes you think that perhaps (not necessarily, but perhaps) he's on the right track and you are not. I've seen him ask you, twice, to try something after reverting one of your patches, and I don't think you obliged. > (What happens below is expected. Either you have seen those kind of > problems or not. It looks like you have not. No. But I don't try to do the things you do with frames, mainly because I very rarely use more than one. > For me this is just a > normal progress of the discussion. Is it not that for you?) Seems like a non sequitur. What is a normal progress of the discussion? > I have been trying to get a frame to become the foreground window in a > certain situation but so far failed. There are many things involved so > I am not sure of why it fails. And it does not always fail. I even > believed I found out how to get it to work but after that it has > always failed. > > I have tried the normal things like raise-frame, > set-frame-select-input-focus, make-frame-visible, redisplay. And I > have tried to do it in a timer. (I think when it worked I had a rather > large timeout in the timer.) > > When doing some logging I have seen that the frame setup does not seem > to be finished. The frame is created, the buffer I want to display is > somehow tied to the frame, but it does not yet have a window. I have > no idea whether this is a part of the problem I have or not. All of this seems like a recipe that you *could* send to this thread. "Look, I tried with this code here, run in such-and-such circumstances, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't". It would be clearer than trying to extract meaning from descriptions and paraphrases. > I try to open a new frame to edit a text area in Firefox using It's > All Text. This calls emacsclient without wait (since otherwise it > hangs Firefox). > > I have set server-raise-frame to nil since I want to create a special > frame for editing and just raise that. If server-raise-frame is > non-nil this will raise the current frame in Emacs instead. > > So now in server-window I just create a frame and try to raise that. > And I can't get it to work. > > I have a variable pointing to the frame and it looks ok so I know it is there. Are you sure this isn't just Windows trying to keep Emacs from stealing the focus? You know, AllowSetForegroundWindow and that stuff. I've sometimes seen emacsclient call Emacs from a console (4NT) and Emacs not getting the focus because 4NT (and so emacsclient) just happened to lose the focus before calling AllowSetForegroundWindow. > Ah, shit. Thanks. (I am too unused to reading C code.) Glad to help. Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:08:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127699607815757 (code B ref 6468); Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:08:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jun 2010 01:07:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ90v-000466-ID for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:07:57 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ90t-000461-4v for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:07:56 -0400 Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so1787983gyh.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:07:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=foO7cX/fiTCroYJbLv/oIqdIqV1sq/1wjCtKSV6QNLc=; b=F88YfgpLk5TC3rUSAxyuRv5kyKC6GU6lKT85YZ5Z+lhmFQJWaDRlJQvu+bCLHRttyJ KkJjvY+W9L0+VeH5QmadjMO3W8aVb5+AIqnSJdO18z81Qh+OG9RI/91bBSKAWvLfdNex asqaVVlIKzHnYM2oDc0aVCwIoXRigH9Rmya24= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=mORfOgnJXny80PZsKNoZVIoQWr+v/0rrtGe1hqXNEgpO9FlkACDx8WUsRCR7gYn9ph epkLPIZhpMhjJYY2RxDRtKVi25b8Bcr2qEEsjXupPcfenZxXqYnlSKXAmDCRqGuuzmX4 ng165Y2B1s/ixdI3JKAqRVInNCDIedw0+HJls= Received: by 10.101.11.20 with SMTP id o20mr2491944ani.4.1276996071103; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:07:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:07:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:07:31 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > > IMHO, sometimes you fail to explain the problem to such a point that > it is difficult for other people to know whether they have also > experienced it. Thanks, I will try to be a bit more careful. > I don't think Eli's knowledge is limited to the "internals of redisplay". I never said that. >> I think both of us has tried the best we can but we have got stuck at >> this moment. > > That, I can understand. What I do not understand is that then you > switch to accusing people of wasting your time, I think both Eli and I were beginning to think that time was wasted. I because I thought that Eli did not look into my patch, but just assumed it was the wrong thing to do. (I did find that very irritating. And I think that is quite right of me to not accept that without any good reason. We are all here without any obligation, but that means respect is very necessary.) And Eli maybe because he thought he did not get the data he needed (which I did believe I sent to him, but I might have missed it). > or not wanting your > patches, or not wanting to take the trouble to understand, etc. etc. The patches are a trouble for me. Merging sometimes take a lot of time. However without them I (and I think many others) have trouble using Emacs. >> But it does not help if you say that Eli understands the >> problem better. I am sure Eli understands the display engine better >> now, but it is only partly involved. > > Oh, it can be of help if it makes you think that perhaps (not > necessarily, but perhaps) he's on the right track and you are not. > I've seen him ask you, twice, to try something after reverting one of > your patches, and I don't think you obliged. I did not try it because I was very sure it should not solve the problem. That was confirmed when others did try. What should I do in situations like that? >> (What happens below is expected. Either you have seen those kind of >> problems or not. It looks like you have not. > > No. But I don't try to do the things you do with frames, mainly > because I very rarely use more than one. > >> For me this is just a >> normal progress of the discussion. Is it not that for you?) > > Seems like a non sequitur. What is a normal progress of the discussion? Maybe it is a non sequitur. I do not know because I do not know what it is ;-) Of course normal progression of a discussion can look in many ways. I just wanted to show how I normal try to get someones attention to a not so common and maybe therefore not so easy to grasp problem. >> I have been trying to get a frame to become the foreground window in a >> certain situation but so far failed. There are many things involved so >> I am not sure of why it fails. And it does not always fail. I even >> believed I found out how to get it to work but after that it has >> always failed. >> >> I have tried the normal things like raise-frame, >> set-frame-select-input-focus, make-frame-visible, redisplay. And I >> have tried to do it in a timer. (I think when it worked I had a rather >> large timeout in the timer.) >> >> When doing some logging I have seen that the frame setup does not seem >> to be finished. The frame is created, the buffer I want to display is >> somehow tied to the frame, but it does not yet have a window. I have >> no idea whether this is a part of the problem I have or not. > > All of this seems like a recipe that you *could* send to this thread. > "Look, I tried with this code here, run in such-and-such > circumstances, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't". It would > be clearer than trying to extract meaning from descriptions and > paraphrases. Yes, but for me this seems easier, but it depends on whom I am communicating with. If it is someone I know does not understand elisp or the functions very well I ask for code. Otherwise I ask for a description like this. It makes communication very much faster. >> I try to open a new frame to edit a text area in Firefox using It's >> All Text. This calls emacsclient without wait (since otherwise it >> hangs Firefox). >> >> I have set server-raise-frame to nil since I want to create a special >> frame for editing and just raise that. If server-raise-frame is >> non-nil this will raise the current frame in Emacs instead. >> >> So now in server-window I just create a frame and try to raise that. >> And I can't get it to work. >> >> I have a variable pointing to the frame and it looks ok so I know it is there. > > Are you sure this isn't just Windows trying to keep Emacs from > stealing the focus? You know, AllowSetForegroundWindow and that stuff. > I've sometimes seen emacsclient call Emacs from a console (4NT) and > Emacs not getting the focus because 4NT (and so emacsclient) just > happened to lose the focus before calling AllowSetForegroundWindow. No, I am not sure. And since the frame seems to be in a strange state I am even more unsure. "Was there some bad system call that made the OS upset so it refuses to do this?" I have seen such problem when dealing with low level functions. It can be very frustrating. Maybe a lot of those bugs in Windows that led to bad recovery now have been cured. I have know idea and it can really take a long time to find out. I thought first when you mention AllowSetForegroundWindow "ah, that is Firefox that does not give emacsclient this so it can't give it to Emacs". But that can not be the case since if I server-raise-frame is non-nil then Emacs comes to the foreground (but the whole of it, not just the frame I want). And then I have been looking at which threads was involved. At least it looks like the same threads. But maybe still there is an issue with the threads that I do not understand. Perhaps only one thread has this privelege and it is not given to the other? There is no transferring of it in Emacs AFAICS. >> Ah, shit. Thanks. (I am too unused to reading C code.) > > Glad to help. I have done this mistake before ... ;-) From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:22:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.12770365135100 (code B ref 6468); Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:22:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jun 2010 12:21:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQJX6-0001KD-9a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:21:52 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.211.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQJX4-0001K8-VM for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:21:51 -0400 Received: by ywh2 with SMTP id 2so2612864ywh.0 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:21:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=McJ5yh3T9whj4g/brzfG5b5DzywVtBi07exclVVJEf4=; b=sIBScIz22FpBuI98YajwVA5Liy5lbgPCsXbDagRnRK43v9EU7mSyppL2RzDmWRpLqc VzEzlHBaRVmqzVdT3T+qtHUVwGe47EYLKmGa9T4Vqni3UbeBgzmMes4VoKAcmJZ6gR8H N8Yj6of2c0vqgvNRC/GDR29kbKrX7xJTUiahs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=c1Jh9zBWhmWjUWr1g6yhsrNDPNV+qRtefJ0Ayr86zITyhPZU21wMKeUS+ZeSs5kZ+u ZuuFQtHOb7qb6cxDuHKR3qFd8lxn8UAALZLvGrwBdG0ZRoyPfAbvRckeJSA8GI31168O xX0M1ZmO3l4rryem07pZV8tJTjCytXFBIiwJg= Received: by 10.100.244.32 with SMTP id r32mr2761941anh.28.1277036505167; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:21:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:21:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:21:25 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Lennart Borgman wrote: >> >> Are you sure this isn't just Windows trying to keep Emacs from >> stealing the focus? You know, AllowSetForegroundWindow and that stuff. >> I've sometimes seen emacsclient call Emacs from a console (4NT) and >> Emacs not getting the focus because 4NT (and so emacsclient) just >> happened to lose the focus before calling AllowSetForegroundWindow. > > > No, I am not sure. And since the frame seems to be in a strange state > I am even more unsure. "Was there some bad system call that made the > OS upset so it refuses to do this?" > > I have seen such problem when dealing with low level functions. It can > be very frustrating. Maybe a lot of those bugs in Windows that led to > bad recovery now have been cured. I have know idea and it can really > take a long time to find out. > > I thought first when you mention AllowSetForegroundWindow "ah, that is > Firefox that does not give emacsclient this so it can't give it to > Emacs". But that can not be the case since if I server-raise-frame is > non-nil then Emacs comes to the foreground (but the whole of it, not > just the frame I want). > > And then I have been looking at which threads was involved. At least > it looks like the same threads. But maybe still there is an issue with > the threads that I do not understand. Perhaps only one thread has this > privelege and it is not given to the other? There is no transferring > of it in Emacs AFAICS. It happened again that it worked. Ah, fine, I thought and removed what I commented out. Then it stopped working. Any thoughts about what could be behind why Emacs behaves this way? What do you think we should do? My own guess is that there are some bad system calls in Emacs somewhere that causes Emacs to fail. But I am not sure where. From my own experiences I know that they do not have to be around the calls to SetForegroundWindow at all. Since both you and Eli thinks that it is a bad idea to check more system calls I would be glad for a suggestion what to do instead. From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:21:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.12771624174245 (code B ref 6468); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:21:01 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jun 2010 23:20:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQqHo-00016Q-Fm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:20:16 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQqHm-00016L-BC for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:20:14 -0400 Received: by gxk3 with SMTP id 3so272923gxk.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:20:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=N8SsG2O7F7d1eXRAlrhyfDJB2LLAbEUSxHDfrvdeDhE=; b=LXOwEYn1y4iXkm22waACKU/HdpC0k4gJoW2rwQckNJH4vHXOWWOYfkSyqdqYAbw13o LU3wNx5jp3AJQv3Em5Hh9lIF2269IKlQ/mIRRFrHOlr0rViBZWyFKtRjKe1k7TZ/z2QH jqGZZUrtFTxA/hZMGoF51gZ2Qo5Xo04ewUPfc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RZ6ZDy3SYvFXs9ctIkzOC66Z5hqc8UHg4i8/AkumiiNykg5//Zh6+bcd4MbgwArDdm bZRiyQ4lCL3Qs2hXUWFbM5XJIsY3zGU5JpJeuXjT5tEHJZEYSOynlKH3CQb0KIDw89HM C4KRl0yzg7LPOkScD/W1tymO/6l5mOX62kuDY= Received: by 10.101.203.9 with SMTP id f9mr4515259anq.208.1277162410235; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:20:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:19:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:19:50 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Lennart Borgman wrote: > >>> I am asking about this part: >>> >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_window =3D GetForegroundWindow (); >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_thread =3D GetWindowThreadProcessId (fo= reground_window, NULL); >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (!foreground_window >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 || foreground_thread =3D=3D GetCurre= ntThreadId () >>> >>> Does not the if clause mean that if foreground_wind is not 0 then the >>> old value of foreground_thread will be erased? Or am I misreading >>> this? >> >> If foreground_window is 0, or > > > Ah, shit. Thanks. (I am too unused to reading C code.) Eh, now wait a minute again... - does not that mean that if foreground_window is not 0 then the "|| foreground_thread =3D GetCurrentThread ()" will be executed? (As I said...) And I do not think that is supposed to happen. Or do I get something wrong = here? Why is it so easy to get this simple thing wrong? (I think I know the answer, but it hurts my feeling as a human being. We are supposed to be the most logical animal.) >> =C2=A0 foreground_thread is equal to the current thread's id, or >> =C2=A0 the AttachThread call returns 0 >> then >> =C2=A0 foreground_thread is set to 0 >> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Juanma >> > From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:19:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127719469421015 (code B ref 6468); Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:19:01 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jun 2010 08:18:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQygP-0005Su-N3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:18:13 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQygN-0005So-U8 for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:18:12 -0400 Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so719157bwz.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:18:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=sO8h9bq0irYunk+OToNbJMD+LnDb6oqs2KCDWK4sI8A=; b=DgnLzElceZ7exzxiHfVDezJNHkhlxCMTWw4UC5MTO6H/CMkwLxpwG2QU9EBETO/Ein 4MBv9gleZQpIsrDXK2QQaVODMcPLZ2aFmOzJkYWyG3+pUbdY8OupgnQw9F8+eSHIBQaA U/1/cXN1t9I6asF0v+Cd3Fg9zbUW2tESgdxXQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=lMK39iWARAR1UVf4qcdPZGrrUxYRVG2avFaxEBcb4MCaJfcsWLYo/2Ue87yVRb1MhN 2eKVMmCKMijNujoiKFh2QRlmXYnnV6KQ1HjWm9TxINu3ap+6IDU5QoHNjnzuv/+gh6Ab 2nkmKfWObODmTHz5jP9kpKNCyLy8LAo7Opf3o= Received: by 10.204.74.10 with SMTP id s10mr3874239bkj.26.1277194688078; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:18:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.129 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:17:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:17:48 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 01:19, Lennart Borgman wrote: > Eh, now wait a minute again... - does not that mean that if > foreground_window is not 0 then the "|| foreground_thread = > GetCurrentThread ()" will be executed? (As I said...) There's no || foreground_thread = GetCurrentThreadId () on the code you quoted; there is || foreground_thread == GetCurrentThreadId () which is not the same thing. No assignment in sight there. Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:41:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127720322524706 (code B ref 6468); Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:41:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jun 2010 10:40:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OR0u0-0006QR-0X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:40:24 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.211.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OR0tw-0006QM-WF for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:40:21 -0400 Received: by ywh2 with SMTP id 2so3703093ywh.0 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:40:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MACFtnpI3v1y+nuaeOFLm0KIKt1oK5WWGOR84ESBn8w=; b=UMeRPNp1NGQgKFH/+iXcQ3Gi9SEn3KWCwwAyZGyB1KGsQtlRtIzit0Eao46BtU/Dli igqIW2yK7sT+rfpGu8wXaGCXJEOrjKA082g+dnA54M2UJDc/PPZDYqdtb6mGTjwGz0Tr zCWfkAH8FERpZSzp5Ky8+AyAoK1JqhmTb9Ulo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ee3vDtzS6OCSVU3nFVO7Ndma946W0cKVyt8CSPlwPT+kYpKPWDrfHCycXPDV84wviF N01MkxJ9Ll9d8FsHAyA4neNvkw16IOKGbtSBZImb953LM1VNEPgfXDXmjjWrNMY+e6Uu uivm3v6yRXE5XCtdsuaGXOyvRP5LTJFPGvHYY= Received: by 10.101.130.8 with SMTP id h8mr4932595ann.36.1277203215137; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:40:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:39:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:39:54 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Juanma Barranquero wro= te: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 01:19, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> Eh, now wait a minute again... - does not that mean that if >> foreground_window is not 0 then the "|| foreground_thread =3D >> GetCurrentThread ()" will be executed? (As I said...) > > There's no > > =C2=A0|| foreground_thread =3D GetCurrentThreadId () > > on the code you quoted; there is > > =C2=A0|| foreground_thread =3D=3D GetCurrentThreadId () > > which is not the same thing. No assignment in sight there. You are right. Then it is perhaps only a logical error (which likely is a typo) since my version I have here now works. Could you please write it any way you like it? (Maybe turn the test around to the recommended order so people like me who read C very seldom don't get fooled?) Just a comment: It is a bit surprising that no one have seen it before. Maybe people just did not expect this to work in Emacs? (I remember I saw this once before but misread it and did not have time to come back to it.) From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:59:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127720432825152 (code B ref 6468); Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:59:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jun 2010 10:58:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OR1Bo-0006Xd-2q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:58:48 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OR1Bl-0006XX-C3 for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:58:45 -0400 Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so793886bwz.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:58:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=pb2yBhgKdUDchJf83XR8KZk5PGC2e1agl0PZvjnlfn8=; b=N0siHJLIyZGMjc+d8eeTzRZzozSRpNxbi1+j6sRHd5lpjjm5jCf0MIEi/zdzYUNFgH 771OAFxD6j/DI/QeZB2yNMgPQ5WxOlgJDidrm6U5tPcnwcnF8i9qbmk/9oghpORtc625 0U23R9SJextqDlxoQ69N4NfZ+eqrVZdtH6I0w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=R3nnV0VjdpOA8CWWzS92A3q7mQmE4TabZJ3mkADvvgoU//4tjBy3hPDdlpMFCaE1TU sc1RoMBRVlQzAOob1i6sioQJH7zOgHNgskBL47SlkBorh/AfYRvSFOi5g1Etjkhd89oU ZAJ1Yq0Vw0Mj/LGIuxTr+1iSdHLj6r/5E05lo= Received: by 10.204.84.103 with SMTP id i39mr4006585bkl.199.1277204319123; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:58:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.129 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:58:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:58:19 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:39, Lennart Borgman wrote: > You are right. Then it is perhaps only a logical error (which likely > is a typo) since my version I have here now works. Lennart, I haven't looked at the source code, just the example you sent. What logical error? Are you saying that the comparation is an error, or that the real Emacs code contains an assignment and that is an error, or what? > Could you please write it any way you like it? No, I'm not likely to touch code in complex parts of Emacs I don't really know. > (Maybe turn the test > around to the recommended order so people like me who read C very > seldom don't get fooled?) People who read little C should learn more C before trying to change the Emacs sources, IMNSHO. Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:18:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127728827230268 (code B ref 6468); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:18:01 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jun 2010 10:17:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORN1j-0007s9-A9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:17:52 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORN1h-0007s4-KM for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:17:50 -0400 Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so683503gxk.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:17:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=+Lhl/6+d2uqROQ+nb+LexdiOoRiDzgIZLIFfUvm/n5E=; b=diAEpH7gaY6EYWZr/F/KEtdj4BCzfK3y9p/iGRkzF89VJKejI4pdxqSMXRKY/IdQfI 8Zyg8ppB4D9nrHShRgClh3vprQVP93sWO6MBTHw1xLLrO5TgNDCvHgnwVNAv+Bd2/cwK tGpB78+1zQ0vNJNX9+zw73IY1vE1ZvuKiG6FE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=kAc1c9IK55uREJiaRGN3fswu3X/w9m9s3UhbzODtnbeHxMjFtD1mhMMjLaR7PcGBKb JagiEBpi2Eze8S5EtER61eMn59srHIcQZtv/h5QkIW0iItKeeKcHjJQUf3IgYcQ5qvuF 6una6zVYXQjf/rMTkWGWcX5C/QkrbEHzdNLM4= Received: by 10.101.130.8 with SMTP id h8mr6415454ann.36.1277288266343; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:17:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:17:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:17:25 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:39, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> You are right. Then it is perhaps only a logical error (which likely >> is a typo) since my version I have here now works. > > Lennart, I haven't looked at the source code, just the example you > sent. What logical error? Are you saying that the comparation is an > error, or that the real Emacs code contains an assignment and that is > an error, or what? > >> Could you please write it any way you like it? > > No, I'm not likely to touch code in complex parts of Emacs I don't really know. > >> (Maybe turn the test >> around to the recommended order so people like me who read C very >> seldom don't get fooled?) > > People who read little C should learn more C before trying to change > the Emacs sources, IMNSHO. Isn't it more important to understand the logic before trying to change anything? From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127728933030794 (code B ref 6468); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:36:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jun 2010 10:35:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNIn-00080d-Nj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:35:29 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNIk-00080Y-Vt for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:35:27 -0400 Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so1342654bwz.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:35:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=/h/lDXTPX5dP5TBVpSgFBNDjJHC+Qa8E6Pz0HArAs0U=; b=EkjmYLDJfybSfojPvIHoLunj8oybTUd8QefOqH3vicPoHn04jMLMj7hUKIw2U83T5S alAY/lreEh34CVH/FW7ogiBV3KNEqViryoelxrn4jDB84iNCUJOs8v77sw66sEoAi0yq qVohzJTqaN+Nj5c9Qa7trAZoubQfLbS0NlYUg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=NdMQ5vRWfpUArSN1FgKd7t3lu1iWMpQWviCYTOIBWNasFbpev7VcVGLa5V/WBKB9XI rUG6JbdHeQNbzmgEH8YukXTYTOFoULhd2eI2xCXF9KOMctjKYJMFLlz/inb1Ozk7XFBV LTJ60+zaheyLe8aI1N3ptFMoBrnr86oKhVBr0= Received: by 10.204.46.196 with SMTP id k4mr5371530bkf.72.1277289319223; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:35:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.129 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:34:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:34:59 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:17, Lennart Borgman wrote: > Isn't it more important to understand the logic before trying to > change anything? Isn't necessary to learn the language before trying to understand the logic? Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:42:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127728971731021 (code B ref 6468); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:42:01 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jun 2010 10:41:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNP3-00084I-04 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:41:57 -0400 Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNP1-00084D-KE for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:41:55 -0400 Received: by gwj16 with SMTP id 16so3479596gwj.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:41:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=dLu+Ezv6tuHN/ulvn8Co3sC7B1Odz89AeYl56o4Qj9A=; b=il4Vayg5ziJA7lnBjRmEEYY5Yuk+Dx3pMFyyMrsiYhS1LN1tIRVMabh9wVT1YAMXOU zb3WuHZSqn8DIszQoHYcPxafQ4hzgIrC9ExrjJwQ9/PVWcGg+/KOMC5s1cPE5APE00hh m5/h9d/NzMkMIyI0IOFZWPJBwhWoHXzIiv9dU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=C2g26oXq9fTnmo8r6g871ybVXQDJSND+w7DKCQCe49ESR+nmjWE4XM71OIrj2sp2bs smhq6J6m6h6pStVnPTOsXjPYWD3+Thoe9zBXv5w7cVEUKId7z80d88+luGcSYrcEk+Rm YJKjiFCw3hwKJOZERaJRlDa6hSFSCVEqXA7uc= Received: by 10.101.7.29 with SMTP id k29mr6395509ani.16.1277289710164; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:41:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:41:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:41:29 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:17, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> Isn't it more important to understand the logic before trying to >> change anything? > > Isn't necessary to learn the language before trying to understand the logic? I don't think that it is necessary. It is just easier, but not necessary. From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Lennart Borgman Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127729049931335 (code B ref 6468); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:55:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jun 2010 10:54:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNbe-00089M-Aw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:54:58 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNbc-00089H-9E for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:54:56 -0400 Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so1352217bwz.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=sMlVpKLCrX8HJc6rGbL6e4wKdoZ5kRXJeFMyfWzeLJ4=; b=bW8ixMqaip9oFUrJVnojwqyjL/FcZyazR0OYdjHObqMlsjGv60JZNuWleJcUSXbhlS P9G9ZpHGSp7qUd2LENVs7gQCG0tFWE8OKHX8ZpjxN+kmKG/TH+W86GX7CB1nNAjhgSPq l2jg6oNy86Cq+ztaCpY1/OG8ImYRFPFyPzdKM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=h+lkFNFuPTaaq9/3QDZ+mmAid/udKaVE1iQlyst3r4EJ2Za2dAgUBHLKI3FWWIsJ3t 8V81+s4I4fq68JSaqtMyFUvKDFSO3tSvLYnFNSMcaTu9sRGV0paxp7GI9Slu1T/Jqt1t hM0pUFvAkU4bYuUyo27bs7MwPi+SwK27tL+3o= Received: by 10.204.160.145 with SMTP id n17mr5438307bkx.67.1277290490348; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.129 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:54:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:54:30 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:41, Lennart Borgman wrote: > I don't think that it is necessary. It is just easier, but not necessary. Mistakes will be funny to watch. Juanma From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Juanma Barranquero Cc: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.127729132231648 (code B ref 6468); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:09:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jun 2010 11:08:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNow-0008EP-Bx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:08:42 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORNot-0008EK-W4 for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:08:40 -0400 Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so696402gxk.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 04:08:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=0N1ZyDMpcSBdMGdHUox/3cbNcpyRkzL2FDr6dd9TbBw=; b=qcoB1st+Eg0GYjKr2PvXFGUWdAscg7VN09w7y+kdiOqbiym8D/+DAtM+yAeD3oHsFf RYNhFlISHKXsr6fpqxa6S7UMs/dhVSYCbfo80bWwQEEGlMHDNUJCnQew/6dxwjHEzeYs Nsvn9+9wouniZflqLg4ZHHE67Vu7dDrSJNU7k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=RiwjZ1Y7TYSfSKqK8UIzqKjMopZTqb1WFI4HGkVNnRCZQR2bUidtNwvTBaFMmbzWIk RnmPoplfWrhEeRCD04VeQoWfZX9YxXhjUMxe1ptPKF/iSV2nhCu2RzNeyTbhGvHTx15c GfIFkKFRwG/fYKVsO9O8sDo+AO/HdsWbBwTQs= Received: by 10.100.251.14 with SMTP id y14mr772525anh.82.1277291313149; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 04:08:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 04:08:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Lennart Borgman Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:08:13 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:41, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> I don't think that it is necessary. It is just easier, but not necessary. > > Mistakes will be funny to watch. I just get a bit frustrated when I see the mistakes here. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 06 16:35:39 2011 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 20:35:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBufL-0006ac-EQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:39 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBufI-0006aO-PH; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:37 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBuf6-00019b-Pk; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0400 From: Glenn Morris To: 6468-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) References: <83ljaag0ez.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spook: FIPS140 SAFE Albania Leitrim undercover USDOJ MD2 virus X-Ran: #B$&Fy0Vcn9inoS(Cz2@^rRDR5E^bz_kLHg7$6Skkr"E"yCbMOt[oNJK=Ho"/QaBACW.ok X-Hue: green X-Attribution: GM Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83ljaag0ez.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:47:16 +0300") Message-ID: <8omxddhn8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) tags 6468 notabug stop Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Would you please describe the problem(s) you are talking about? > > How about a reproducible recipe for them? This was never answered. This isn't a bug a report, just a rambling discussion that goes nowhere. If there is a problem, open a new, self-contained report that actually gives details. From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.427 (Entity 5.427) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Lennart Borgman Subject: bug#6468: closed (Re: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32)) Message-ID: References: <8omxddhn8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 6468 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs X-Gnu-PR-Keywords: notabug Reply-To: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:36:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1317933362-25385-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1317933362-25385-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) 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 6468@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 6468: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D6468 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1317933362-25385-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 6468-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 20:35:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBufK-0006aZ-OK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:39 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBufI-0006aO-PH; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:37 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBuf6-00019b-Pk; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0400 From: Glenn Morris To: 6468-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) References: <83ljaag0ez.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spook: FIPS140 SAFE Albania Leitrim undercover USDOJ MD2 virus X-Ran: #B$&Fy0Vcn9inoS(Cz2@^rRDR5E^bz_kLHg7$6Skkr"E"yCbMOt[oNJK=Ho"/QaBACW.ok X-Hue: green X-Attribution: GM Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83ljaag0ez.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:47:16 +0300") Message-ID: <8omxddhn8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6468-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) tags 6468 notabug stop Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Would you please describe the problem(s) you are talking about? > > How about a reproducible recipe for them? This was never answered. This isn't a bug a report, just a rambling discussion that goes nowhere. If there is a problem, open a new, self-contained report that actually gives details. ------------=_1317933362-25385-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jun 2010 18:24:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2i0-0000i4-CP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:24:00 -0400 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2hy-0000hy-A9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:59 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:39106) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2ht-0002JB-Ay for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:53 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51417 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQ2hr-0005GE-RB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:52 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2hq-0001J9-Pw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:51 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f192.google.com ([209.85.211.192]:49088) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQ2hq-0001J3-Mw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:23:50 -0400 Received: by ywh30 with SMTP id 30so2085888ywh.24 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=gPH1tL/FcjEGwdDecCMYl4gQL0S64HX2EbOY3ZxlsLw=; b=foNvhWr9MwB1qGkGnFFnJYMuFIXRnRPKDU1ChjNYTmXg9iWTd8QWNTTnM2w2jUQJFS 7ojFjG6l49JLzquJpM9nawxSYE76zayXizOdJL8tP9fSn1fVIYbbNiBKVnVMqb07k10i kwKGhVDb+2IMVe5XICwwZeL+n8wflU0JXambQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=Vbc9gj1s9RD5PJ5P5Hf2OxMVI8+EfvcEEMzmfFnM86h1Lwkkso/eLYOH1rRuwXDv8a nL8sonXfctQyV8ysLJn/4ArpRV/vUEELz9hAOucgJcS0xnyc3BPRR7hlkQAGa+RXN8ki Tqr3V26udwIolM+comgpkNRrVCGCETbaPHskA= Received: by 10.101.135.25 with SMTP id m25mr2076054ann.58.1276971830136; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Lennart Borgman Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:23:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) To: Emacs Bugs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -4.6 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.6 (----) After struggling with the getting raise-frame to workaround the current problems with raise-frame I gave up. There are a couple of problems so I am not sure where to begin. I think the basic problem is that there is no hook so you can be sure when a call to raise-frame (and other frame functions) will work after frame creation. Since part of the frame creation as I understand it is done asynchronously be the OS/window manager I think this is a really basic need to get Emacs to work. But I tried to do the raise-frame in a hook to and that does not work either in all situations and I am not quite sure why. One problem is that the system API calls currently is not checked and partly in bad order. Here is the relevant part from w32fns.c: case WM_EMACS_SETFOREGROUND: { HWND foreground_window; DWORD foreground_thread, retval; /* On NT 5.0, and apparently Windows 98, it is necessary to attach to the thread that currently has focus in order to pull the focus away from it. */ foreground_window = GetForegroundWindow (); foreground_thread = GetWindowThreadProcessId (foreground_window, NULL); if (!foreground_window || foreground_thread == GetCurrentThreadId () || !AttachThreadInput (GetCurrentThreadId (), foreground_thread, TRUE)) foreground_thread = 0; retval = SetForegroundWindow ((HWND) wParam); /* Detach from the previous foreground thread. */ if (foreground_thread) AttachThreadInput (GetCurrentThreadId (), foreground_thread, FALSE); return retval; } The first call to GetWindowThreadProcessId should not be done if the call to GetForegroundWindow does not succeed. If there had been error checking this problem should have been detected long ago. I have suggested adding that but the answer so far has not been positive. In my opinion this is a huge waste of time. (I can surely add this to my patched version but in the current situation where I unfortunately have to keep a lot of bug fixes in my code it costs my just too much time.) Next problem is that if foreground_window is not 0 then the value of foreground_thread will be erased if do not misunderstand the C priorities. Can someone please confirm/disconfirm this? ------------=_1317933362-25385-1-- From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:20:02 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6468: closed (Re: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32)) Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:41:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6468 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug To: 6468@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6468-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6468.131793363326049 (code B ref 6468); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:41:02 +0000 Received: (at 6468) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 20:40:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBuk1-0006m3-65 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:40:31 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBujk-0006lR-2r for 6468@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:40:22 -0400 Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so2975048gyd.3 for <6468@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:39:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wStPEGvQQpXdVBpTwjvy7/G1cy75fg6p0t0EZ2riJ/U=; b=SsfFq4LP44jYng5k+1a2/ADGavqrR3dRWKIkfWlrm+hnNhauldSyYUnY54dDQQZiqR w513vn2uRlBjX/5EL7sLnY8K4bLhnP9X4I45CIgUInbYgMedTr5NNtfVLrB5+qhOfAT1 9GMmIzxscheO4UtBclsAOh+ZRjnD6Fps5xMfY= Received: by 10.223.62.15 with SMTP id v15mr5812215fah.22.1317933595337; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:39:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.20.229 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8omxddhn8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:39:35 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) I prefer to give up. If it is enough to call it rant then I have no one to eplain to. And I have no time to waste on such answers. On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 22:36, GNU bug Tracking System wrote: > Your bug report > > #6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) > > 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 6468@debbugs.gnu.org. > > -- > 6468: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D6468 > GNU Bug Tracking System > Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0Glenn Morris > To:=C2=A06468-done@debbugs.gnu.org > Date:=C2=A0Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0400 > Subject:=C2=A0Re: bug#6468: A couple of problem related to frame raising = (partly w32) > tags 6468 notabug > stop > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Would you please describe the problem(s) you are talking about? >> >> How about a reproducible recipe for them? > > This was never answered. > > This isn't a bug a report, just a rambling discussion that goes nowhere. > > If there is a problem, open a new, self-contained report that actually > gives details. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0Lennart Borgman > To:=C2=A0Emacs Bugs > Date:=C2=A0Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:23:29 +0200 > Subject:=C2=A0A couple of problem related to frame raising (partly w32) > After struggling with the getting raise-frame to workaround the > current problems with raise-frame I gave up. There are a couple of > problems so I am not sure where to begin. > > I think the basic problem is that there is no hook so you can be sure > when a call to raise-frame (and other frame functions) will work after > frame creation. Since part of the frame creation as I understand it is > done asynchronously be the OS/window manager I think this is a really > basic need to get Emacs to work. > > But I tried to do the raise-frame in a hook to and that does not work > either in all situations and I am not quite sure why. > > One problem is that the system API calls currently is not checked and > partly in bad order. Here is the relevant part from w32fns.c: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0case WM_EMACS_SETFOREGROUND: > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0{ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0HWND foreground_window; > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0DWORD foreground_thread, retval; > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0/* On NT 5.0, and apparently Windows 98, it is= necessary to > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 attach to the thread that currently ha= s focus in order to > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 pull the focus away from it. =C2=A0*/ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0foreground_window =3D GetForegroundWindow (); > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0foreground_thread =3D GetWindowThreadProcessId= (foreground_window, NULL); > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (!foreground_window > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|| foreground_thread =3D=3D GetC= urrentThreadId () > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|| !AttachThreadInput (GetCurren= tThreadId (), > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_thread, TRUE)) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0foreground_thread =3D 0; > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0retval =3D SetForegroundWindow ((HWND) wParam)= ; > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0/* Detach from the previous foreground thread.= =C2=A0*/ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (foreground_thread) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0AttachThreadInput (GetCurrentThreadId (= ), > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 foreground_thread, FALSE); > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0return retval; > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0} > > The first call to GetWindowThreadProcessId should not be done if the > call to GetForegroundWindow does not succeed. > > If there had been error checking this problem should have been > detected long ago. I have suggested adding that but the answer so far > has not been positive. In my opinion this is a huge waste of time. (I > can surely add this to my patched version but in the current situation > where I unfortunately have to keep a lot of bug fixes in my code it > costs my just too much time.) > > Next problem is that if foreground_window is not 0 then the value of > foreground_thread will be erased if do not misunderstand the C > priorities. Can someone please confirm/disconfirm this? > > > >