Subject: Re: bug#67604: Motion problems with inline images

From: JD Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 09:25:16 -0500

Strange.  Can I ask your (frame-char-width) and (frame-char-height)?  I haven’t yet found a font or size where the bug isn’t discoverable.  Usually at multiple frame widths.

Just confirming your buffer looks like:

And that *Messages* includes something like:

Checking with red image width 139
Checking with red image width 140
Checking with red image width 141
Checking with red image width 142
Checking with red image width 143
Checking with red image width 144
Checking with red image width 145
Checking with red image width 146
Checking with red image width 147
Checking with red image width 148
Checking with red image width 149
Checking with red image width 150
Checking with red image width 151
Checking with red image width 152
Checking with red image width 153
Found Bug at offset 7 = 153 pixels

> On Dec 4, 2023, at 9:17 AM, Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> From: JD Smith <[email-masked]>
>> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 09:10:01 -0500
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 4, 2023, at 8:16 AM, Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: JD Smith <[email-masked]>
>>>> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 15:46:38 -0500
>>>> Cc: [email-masked]
>>>> 
>>>> * Run the let-form mentioned in my initial message.
>>>> * Resize the frame width down until the green image first moves to the beginning of a visual line (80
>>>> chars, for me).
>>>> * Resize down one more column *without causing further wrap* (79 chars for me).
>>>> * In the svg-file-motion-demo buffer, execute M-x my/find-skip-bug.
>>>> * It should report the pixel width needed for the red SVG image on the first line to trigger the bug,
>>>> and leave the demo buffer in that state.
>>> 
>>> Instead of reporting the size, it says "Did not find Bug”.
>> 
>> Try increasing/decreasing width by one or two columns and repeating.  Note that if you go too far, you’ll get a false positive report when the green SVG wraps back to line 1.
> 
> Sorry, still no cigar.