From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:11:32 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#68374 <68374@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#68374 <68374@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size Reply-To: bug#68374 <68374@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:11:32 +0000 retitle 68374 min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size reassign 68374 emacs submitter 68374 JD Smith severity 68374 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 10 17:23:15 2024 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2024 22:23:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43443 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rNgyg-0007mz-W1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:23:15 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:35474) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rNgyf-0007mj-1u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:23:13 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rNgya-00074m-QG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:23:08 -0500 Received: from mail-yw1-x112c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::112c]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rNgyZ-0005ju-CF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:23:08 -0500 Received: by mail-yw1-x112c.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-5f3da7ba2bfso48574427b3.3 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:23:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704925385; x=1705530185; darn=gnu.org; h=to:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IWzM/SbfXWJL+y3nL7SlSfg9mVjcc+ntJ1uBD5xb7lg=; b=Kzy6BQxx7FojSKZRrd+TUDM5kSFeoeYBn5ARHsLHavjBQ662c4yni8s9gmTQVLi/vz nECpGNdPmvtQkVfhrbsCgkWTZdQL3OAaw01ZwMYDdWrx760Ip/h/vXTONQQoHc9NaMrf H8aJcyBaps2Rk/zekDSxnHHpGOxSlyFaNy1NTFuuXpC3oNO+cTpTfD0wNIyrdTI9PCdb zlWmg3IDq/gadws9w8FsPNXgQKVG4Pse0kak8jBbkyuMwMqnFfz10XPk800hhV+rK78W E2bStrYGPu62QcCGZeFjm/dMtgb1fbyu9q0L/+307Sy+8obyZBH2LqCuSzKNDb5ya5GB pkHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704925385; x=1705530185; h=to:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IWzM/SbfXWJL+y3nL7SlSfg9mVjcc+ntJ1uBD5xb7lg=; b=uh65E6xMe2LBrSzRMVGtvS0OAlvIb7AP07ZxhQYK4nU5+RZUdHQBhEgq3gm4Dmgapl XEWMAjKFNRFwa2ju06iYEJ5II/Rj19MuSW6CNADRNPn7QIkPtyNC4Dh2SWSd1AvN1Xuc FcBuPLrDiGUSEdmhZsE8DbSAR5NApc2Lf1ibH4STYFfKgRWH4zg1KU0eC+xtUyfSrsGb EaVhKUx6kdguTQZ8m2qhxlKSoDESWmdcDDSK/sZ07AD/j2M44G2he+wuHxG2t9XVlE0V 6kmdXwmQPaSquraeTV8ld+8tqQPTNLVPMKyAmeGgezlfUwKTLpYAdzJcWkwE9i13lp+g SWlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzyI6kLheY7hgsN1iMKopBk4GVSS0UtRFUJATWosWFXajkUllau VbSrQQGrz7h+DZMa0M7D62dOUZcpPkD+ZQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IExl4SgxG4SeCT/VBKkVw4TauIP1n9Q1R/zwSf1xRWkT2yZRhAeJDzzl1zhqFSXT0XWP5c+Iw== X-Received: by 2002:a81:4914:0:b0:5f7:9a2b:fcbb with SMTP id w20-20020a814914000000b005f79a2bfcbbmr354577ywa.103.1704925385097; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:23:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([131.183.131.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l22-20020a815716000000b005e93869ebd6sm1666426ywb.25.2024.01.10.14.23.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:23:04 -0800 (PST) From: JD Smith Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\)) Subject: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:22:53 -0500 To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::112c; envelope-from=jdtsmith@gmail.com; helo=mail-yw1-x112c.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) When the =E2=80=98display min-width property is used on characters in a = buffer, window/buffer-text-pixel-size does not include this min-width = padding in its calculation of the text's pixel width. =20 This can be seen by using a range of minimum character widths and = noticing that the width is identical; see below. Other =E2=80=98display = properties like space :width and space :align-to do seem to be correctly = handled by pixel size calculations.=20 This is relevant because various elements on the mode-line use = =E2=80=98display min-width, so performing pixel alignment on the = mode-line text is impacted. +++ (eval-when-compile 'cl-lib) (cl-loop for w from 0. to 100. by 20.=20 collect (with-current-buffer (get-buffer-create "*pixel-sizes*") (erase-buffer) (insert ">>>" (propertize " " 'display `(min-width (,w))) "<<<") (cons w (buffer-text-pixel-size)))) =20 ;; ((0 49 . 14) (20 49 . 14) (40 49 . 14) (60 49 . 14) (80 49 . 14) (100 = 49 . 14))= From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 11 05:24:48 2024 Received: (at 68374) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jan 2024 10:24:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58775 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rNsEy-0001YJ-0t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:24:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47366) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rNsEw-0001Y4-Ai for 68374@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:24:47 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rNsEs-00017i-Ma; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:24:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=9wqrSpZ512DYSWrAvsizr+FjwYQPbhMZ4rodd5a1ibI=; b=ruX5bl8cTmZKAZE24Rk1 hv5YqV0a8pqeUUOcstAcnqfQDjxUgyH/EL8/muC3Re8340sSdnC7QWLUPKNR1O21aFEvNFeo0lyxU ZlKhQdcnAl3mILv0r7PGdXFfdKgBTyjPwtIvyb1qWQgxT+NWjhkMiEkbVll65eHMbGRJL2cySS7I7 BmmUUhDEv1ZRX6KgGPo1j3A/1Y2YIh1xLFLLEL9cYwHxEBLi0JoKBc5WaP6/BbMgPY5e0+Xj8dRF6 GapaCtcH0XWWG0V7fLaflsgsP876xalDvgSSer8uLD9HfR+c0VGzaRRUCu0b7gNiL6bljud/enG7F BowCjSkpSo9LwQ==; Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:24:04 +0200 Message-Id: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: JD Smith In-Reply-To: (message from JD Smith on Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:22:53 -0500) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size References: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374 Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: JD Smith > Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:22:53 -0500 > > > When the ‘display min-width property is used on characters in a buffer, window/buffer-text-pixel-size does not include this min-width padding in its calculation of the text's pixel width. For some reason I cannot understand, we were ignoring min-width when simulating display (as opposed to actually displaying stuff in a window). I can only assume it's some kind of left-over from when Lars was developing this feature, where calls from functions that simulate display caused him trouble, so he disabled that and forgot to re-enable later. At least I cannot find any discussion of this, and the code which disables min-width in these situations was in the initial version that landed on master. So please try running with the patch below for a couple of weeks, and if it doesn't cause you any trouble, I will install it on master. Please configure your builds with --enable-checking='yes,glyphs' for the duration of this test period, to activate some run-time tests and assertions that will hopefully flag any problems this change might have. TIA diff --git a/src/xdisp.c b/src/xdisp.c index 14cf030..29ac4a4 100644 --- a/src/xdisp.c +++ b/src/xdisp.c @@ -5487,9 +5487,6 @@ display_min_width (struct it *it, ptrdiff_t bufpos, if (!NILP (it->min_width_property) && !EQ (width_spec, it->min_width_property)) { - if (!it->glyph_row) - return; - /* When called from display_string (i.e., the mode line), we're being called with a string as the object, and we may be called with many sub-strings belonging to the same From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 11 14:54:15 2024 Received: (at 68374) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jan 2024 19:54:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33969 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rO183-0001zu-4L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:54:15 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]:60763) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rO180-0001ze-JY for 68374@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:54:13 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-7bee328027bso99597839f.1 for <68374@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:54:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705002849; x=1705607649; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BdGiASGTG6F7ivwlkzLt8LiLX7f8+FQ3zjFfm2v5/mY=; b=gQ2Int49SooIa5BIJfqUhmpTezf/I+2Qa5EGZnABaWLUR7qxuWJidkpBWNwxz7NWH5 xUH6NwNfC4XiMPnSqH2DIFFyZvOROq5oM6XxQU6S1J8wUqyZR99amBPZo6yvNd2aPT+1 su/avX3mvem52caoUCDmyEtzOWejNkNAgGfE/3hYXxDG6ONT2ydWydESVfcCPhzDA0n9 U7f9y/xKiqCbZwxrJXifGvwjHEDwMMJXo4LeVIRgydX3qoDawMAEwCqITIbrXMFXT0tO irvtg0kHWubaF9hrdfqlB+uOotfwYMEaRqiGxIXRKHaY8v2PWmgetIOquUiaREsS9pCm 6Ing== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705002849; x=1705607649; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BdGiASGTG6F7ivwlkzLt8LiLX7f8+FQ3zjFfm2v5/mY=; b=AuZ+oroOZlqnYWjgvVhE7NKfl/UPuiW2Bs4YZieo5senpk+dQwNuasJsRiUCvrKu50 BT7xjP9dJMuTX3Gqqu84pfyo47Dw7jU4gItnMs3vkD66DZT4ikEDE462WJmxEjQTBCGM NqE9zGu24LD+ZkJmrOgIGUw2B/CmYCjFe8Eulm0EXLIxmgkNRqCXupNhVED8pFMmqBLy LG7GcKwXurI5/MZtj62jROV+uZCf6CUseYAThW8aFDUSBc/qQyH/iWuTkVSCEYKLd0CG 1zsUWoYRBrN3NcLuF5cZEebv0fJ/FqXx4RUitVOgZqK4GYTUl4HUjXa+jbrjXl6ejvhG TGgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzF9le2y6+Sala38hXKacMqw75flmQGhgw3yVNxQvPDj0GpyrNK vFUIZpy8uLYEWD+CvZp8MBFAvBbRNTuLBA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IExjZ0M1iUM3PCShXuQgGckVoWeF/awOZK6lXMP8MMkQOO12eaqDtrlTxtbSIdOjCqvJ+5GKA== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:510d:0:b0:7bb:1701:e577 with SMTP id f13-20020a6b510d000000b007bb1701e577mr188724iob.42.1705002849279; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (cm-24-53-187-34.buckeyecom.net. [24.53.187.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cp12-20020a056638480c00b0046e2cb87f6csm489445jab.126.2024.01.11.11.54.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:54:08 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\)) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size From: JD Smith In-Reply-To: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> References: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> To: Eli Zaretskii X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374 Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Great, this small patch seems to work. I=E2=80=99ve enabled glyph = checking and will report here if anything untoward comes up. Should I = be keeping track of the *warnings* buffer? >=20 > On Jan 11, 2024, at 5:24=E2=80=AFAM, Eli Zaretskii = wrote: >=20 >> From: JD Smith >> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:22:53 -0500 >>=20 >>=20 >> When the =E2=80=98display min-width property is used on characters in = a buffer, window/buffer-text-pixel-size does not include this min-width = padding in its calculation of the text's pixel width. =20 >=20 > For some reason I cannot understand, we were ignoring min-width when > simulating display (as opposed to actually displaying stuff in a > window). I can only assume it's some kind of left-over from when Lars > was developing this feature, where calls from functions that simulate > display caused him trouble, so he disabled that and forgot to > re-enable later. At least I cannot find any discussion of this, and > the code which disables min-width in these situations was in the > initial version that landed on master. >=20 > So please try running with the patch below for a couple of weeks, and > if it doesn't cause you any trouble, I will install it on master. > Please configure your builds with --enable-checking=3D'yes,glyphs' for > the duration of this test period, to activate some run-time tests and > assertions that will hopefully flag any problems this change might > have. >=20 > TIA >=20 > diff --git a/src/xdisp.c b/src/xdisp.c > index 14cf030..29ac4a4 100644 > --- a/src/xdisp.c > +++ b/src/xdisp.c > @@ -5487,9 +5487,6 @@ display_min_width (struct it *it, ptrdiff_t = bufpos, > if (!NILP (it->min_width_property) > && !EQ (width_spec, it->min_width_property)) > { > - if (!it->glyph_row) > - return; > - > /* When called from display_string (i.e., the mode line), > we're being called with a string as the object, and we > may be called with many sub-strings belonging to the same From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 12 02:06:06 2024 Received: (at 68374) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jan 2024 07:06:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34668 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rOBcD-0006Ou-QL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 02:06:06 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45178) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rOBcB-0006OH-6S for 68374@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 02:06:05 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rOBc7-0007Ut-UF; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 02:05:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=sbhhB9//UC2r2P+3vk7iBm0ai9IxTrzlj/AgWaLjPmg=; b=sJZokW0Y0pJfBmHVVVN/ i4Gxsfw45l5+gJAz8nvIYIrwpKxwyZxPgHJTqZy3NBSX1jptyl1Sm6lQdlPo/275Tb74N1ffB5dBS y9l/dJCSGDnQonlP0gV7bDnMiKnssIs2sgLKa3f96bC7BpWU/WsrsSDDqSFRA/FI78iFrOWfFqj1T wmHRpgQlP5Q8BcUUbkJC79uQROq7QIX72THkXRLoYbiKEr9OhQJceHTpg65Py19tWyWlv6GrFE0dV y6xopQjF/b9w0xeMb5+7xwAqoIhCS5zT9jP7dbS6/02uj+1eiwIubyxF8YzSHX5+eke704M4crlCd OO8hVI3iig5luA==; Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:05:46 +0200 Message-Id: <83ttnjjak5.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: JD Smith In-Reply-To: <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> (message from JD Smith on Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size References: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374 Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: JD Smith > Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500 > Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org > > Great, this small patch seems to work. I’ve enabled glyph checking and will report here if anything untoward comes up. Should I be keeping track of the *warnings* buffer? Yes, and also look out for redisplay errors in *Messages*. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 12 11:45:26 2024 Received: (at 68374) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jan 2024 16:45:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37483 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rOKer-0002BM-S0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:45:26 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]:47319) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rOKem-0001nT-Tx for 68374@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:45:24 -0500 Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dbed7c0744cso5425921276.2 for <68374@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:45:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705077917; x=1705682717; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bmoH9r636du2AQh580bMH/KDFCt8RfLN7/Qw+LDgP+M=; b=Ucqc6ra5k4mtHJs26tzUkmyL/maKSSR1Mt57caPmTN4wLQtHtSzlkfq1d11LGhbcac g0+nmMHMJ4NIYZtb1oFYs6bgbFWO/0B1ljy+NBJc7sk4dO6TJsYH4i/ga+kzMoeFvs5M 9MhPNHvuSF3uwH6BR4AWLoIg48INub9d0ie8zSAM3veH/5fm/KRlPpRTbtBDIyqwnWY2 wajAGUAIRakS3IuXBB3RDrfNbHtm+JKeuCQEja6tLQ/r0Fj/n/cqkPVnTrrdappInC3h AFjQosKreXRsVf/RDjf3uuFkRzk1rX+9yM/LOx1sbLJx1xlg0mPVbNXyKtVhBKyWxK6T A83g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705077917; x=1705682717; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bmoH9r636du2AQh580bMH/KDFCt8RfLN7/Qw+LDgP+M=; b=j754IlKcmvrGpguqwBpSzDSwVnIsjyKehsqnWLYecXOgjF6e1uexnW4uik/Q8mG4vO nf7jqsIC7RvgY5amsOuGX0oHazKvwl2a8qfZsAnn/tShfwKrMdh6w9oiATX2/FtuHiXP fzhfca8sgB0ZwJPFXrHyXDmeni3O7UodHbMBTDeJil4YY3C3MT1vX/JW7QP4CQbrORRD IYI1b98bFn3/9PxUHHmcU+gvEO3XmJOfL6IcO0iZchgSqkq6VRog9wdsgCnlqHPT+IKS RtucKSvMcZM7w3vTDmDrt/qphsZLhkdyzNyBbcwVDesH5US7Of02fOZqWsYVgqIGhZv9 7/ow== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwzActoGc3tztNfcm2pGGUKtBNZ2VRU2NHTkrsc7rXHccv6dEx6 9lPI4bAkn4cT7Rz1F7u6U3W12dr5X+ibeA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFrfqFnW7z/4OA6fDMXmZdAqNvcO9s7d26+n+5d44obpSLh4wWo2dqlkyYvFAcctfAYLJTnZQ== X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae56:0:b0:dbd:f4ad:6f15 with SMTP id g22-20020a25ae56000000b00dbdf4ad6f15mr821344ybe.92.1705077916945; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:45:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (cm-24-53-187-34.buckeyecom.net. [24.53.187.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k15-20020a05621414ef00b0067f339c0c16sm1162290qvw.134.2024.01.12.08.45.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: JD Smith Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_56530062-A571-4157-866B-F72C1D751611" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\)) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:45:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83ttnjjak5.fsf@gnu.org> To: Eli Zaretskii References: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> <83ttnjjak5.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374 Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --Apple-Mail=_56530062-A571-4157-866B-F72C1D751611 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I suppose the occasional: Error during redisplay: (jit-lock-function 3483) signaled (quit) Error during redisplay: (jit-lock-function 3510) signaled (quit) in *Messages* isn=E2=80=99t related or harmful? Soon I=E2=80=99ll be = using pixel width calculations to layout the mode line; and will keep a = close eye on it. =20 > On Jan 12, 2024, at 2:05=E2=80=AFAM, Eli Zaretskii = wrote: >=20 >> From: JD Smith >> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500 >> Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org >>=20 >> Great, this small patch seems to work. I=E2=80=99ve enabled glyph = checking and will report here if anything untoward comes up. Should I = be keeping track of the *warnings* buffer? >=20 > Yes, and also look out for redisplay errors in *Messages*. >=20 > Thanks. --Apple-Mail=_56530062-A571-4157-866B-F72C1D751611 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 I suppose the = occasional:

Error during redisplay: = (jit-lock-function 3483) signaled (quit)
Error = during redisplay: (jit-lock-function 3510) signaled = (quit)

in *Messages* = isn=E2=80=99t related or harmful?  Soon I=E2=80=99ll be using pixel = width calculations to layout the mode line; and will keep a close eye on = it.  

On Jan 12, 2024, = at 2:05=E2=80=AFAM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

From: JD Smith <jdtsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 = Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500
Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org

Great, this = small patch seems to work.  I=E2=80=99ve enabled glyph checking and = will report here if anything untoward comes up.  Should I be = keeping track of the *warnings* buffer?

Yes, and = also look out for redisplay errors in = *Messages*.

Thanks.

= --Apple-Mail=_56530062-A571-4157-866B-F72C1D751611-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 12 13:09:39 2024 Received: (at 68374) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jan 2024 18:09:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37704 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rOLyM-0002tf-Ou for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:09:39 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41998) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rOLyK-0002tN-7p for 68374@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:09:36 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rOLyG-0007Hq-RB; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:09:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=2HreN+7Con54Tn9ok/Go4HAM4FYWdAqbk/0YY4/GyvI=; b=SPwsEuSI4SbuIM46QQFq xvhNfj4//bC4kc0az5MeHSL7lYyLn00SVSJiDmtpGa+jsVKAYYznuSoGco81gf+72OoHhuW2g5yED Qwh8boQG2HjDA92Ny1mVByRr2X17c9xc6i/eryrhJoMnghFy2pR/Z88F+6KI5MiYmJiT6mqFBLN9p j+1HOJB+D3x1Hgx60j+GxZ/JaVlO6WEskS/zImI9zMidpobWTICGYqNqbMl8ZcdmAz99pspQCb+3b ICuU95aLqe83ZcVvWLRaT3P97nWhP/qWhMSTZJ9GUUr7k77cuwWWvtESF0TX/5cQhX/KdCUWPJsbl VEWlAqjDMC1x3A==; Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:09:25 +0200 Message-Id: <83bk9qifu2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: JD Smith In-Reply-To: (message from JD Smith on Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:45:02 -0500) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size References: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> <83ttnjjak5.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374 Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: JD Smith > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:45:02 -0500 > Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org > > I suppose the occasional: > > Error during redisplay: (jit-lock-function 3483) signaled (quit) > Error during redisplay: (jit-lock-function 3510) signaled (quit) > > in *Messages* isn’t related or harmful? Did you type C-g because something in font-lock was taking too long? But yes, in general this is not the kind of problems I'd expect from the change. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 11 03:55:26 2024 Received: (at 68374) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2024 08:55:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59787 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ5cT-0000HL-N5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 03:55:25 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57496) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ5Uh-0008DP-NK for 68374@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 03:47:24 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ5UM-00081w-9J; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 03:47:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=yz+NJipq/RaEeFhTkhcY2a7xhxYS9RytKxWWEswqSJk=; b=cCrtS0TeQChWj9qQfLFO 31/Y5AHi85fM3eS3fgatzxQhztlH1+kHu1Za15zdIqLxVGb8hQ9lJHgLEdIf/rVYXo9wGG4pq+0xs p90+eTIS3z8NshuyiCAdR7mh57h9A9mUJM/Wy1BGHmPvJZLDfE2jr4gtdSJyEFzD2E3EmEr3vT72Y JrJ8fBHTwAwWhkykPbE3U2JpSMQjTbLNnR4y23eeMF4i2Ykd3XDjCfvrHrdnK288B1UEGVBx3TlCZ v3XiFusiZgjwdGd2TyiYSVHhaJ5tPILZWht5Xjiw84oZWnFn4qzm0qq0TBw4wy7ptkzeaQ8+hjHsS YtdSR2VtXmEtiw==; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:47:01 +0200 Message-Id: <86v86vs7zu.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: JD Smith In-Reply-To: <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> (message from JD Smith on Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size References: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374 Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: JD Smith > Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500 > Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org > > Great, this small patch seems to work. I’ve enabled glyph checking and will report here if anything untoward comes up. Any news? Should I install this now? Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 11 07:20:58 2024 Received: (at 68374) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2024 12:20:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43961 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ8pO-0001V4-1R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:20:58 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2a]:43242) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ8pL-0001Uk-MI for 68374@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:20:56 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-68c794970d5so25913916d6.0 for <68374@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 04:20:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707654034; x=1708258834; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=sh/tlsO/9s4b/WYeZD8t0k6AGpfigSC/GsUa9Fh88PU=; b=Fg2VZ8jCmwyj8OGo1KjURAB/ynf3zyxOPaYkPPwBSgwHQwdV4AqpwWQBA6H1aI8roJ pt3KEDVEOxWifzIUR4lGNbO8IvpIphn96x41dYuoXQp96+Sj7RA5xjXbf0UVWbbFxoRx w6fph5BAKmECtHE1gLSVUjHk/jTL6HMpYZAD6PFlpUiNHDffSjzU1WaLxnV7GG0DGIVV AVCFheJKDYrDakJ2l8pm5mlg0RHrUg8Ic6ltYypfuYJwtEJTBCA2THGNvHCNVlgAVeT8 +pv0TXgGyzIwATZr3BPMghnTpnIneeL0AFv2vi1xnHOvVC9S5Sxypyo5ZW24RbzmcUpF UPQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707654034; x=1708258834; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sh/tlsO/9s4b/WYeZD8t0k6AGpfigSC/GsUa9Fh88PU=; b=NBBlbDqANIKLupcYbHOxNTLmOKFmwBc2ee4uVqaN8bc5Te4UNtJ0ovr3OKdsumYv79 qJWG34L2pEAXS8CwhBVv20scaSTso8K8VO3Puz5jx/HYVg/AgV/u7uYepmGUS+RbjCxw IyTVQbwDGi7y4S5q+f+OuQ4F+RO7hUJWocAX5DB2SWEe5QiR4x//r3ayavvv05qgSIBI wcvvKbruov9MLSY+2RXe1naPOhbNdvbUTAYEEsFTTbmpcfltJRpP1jNYJ+/NaTIBFFhm kbby8faQb/CPPpWZaNiwQsPjpGQu6hZueoL/BdsztXoE7b/b7UJ+eBz4CBDBKkOIgJsY wW7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwHg1VFQDI3rMzsUsXPTGw05uEF8R/5lrFZgreqJLCiraTBWSep Cu1TP776OjJf2PQ+XrUmrCRM0+A+f0BBorFjrTWxQM+j+d3Xq8HW X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGst/3dRiuPnpV6ZmdlvFMIrvfmyJKGj8MP4oDsgqRSvpCfmXEfmGtPPeqnoDXUDgQ3SMPH9A== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:dd01:0:b0:68c:cd44:2c8c with SMTP id u1-20020a0cdd01000000b0068ccd442c8cmr5998927qvk.2.1707654033741; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 04:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([50.228.201.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pj11-20020a0562144b0b00b0068cd7247806sm2240289qvb.121.2024.02.11.04.20.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Feb 2024 04:20:32 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\)) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size From: JD Smith In-Reply-To: <86v86vs7zu.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:20:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1618120D-5914-424B-80CA-62465B41924A@gmail.com> References: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> <86v86vs7zu.fsf@gnu.org> To: Eli Zaretskii X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374 Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) I haven't noticed anything unusual in a couple weeks of use, so please = do. Thanks. > On Feb 11, 2024, at 3:47=E2=80=AFAM, Eli Zaretskii = wrote: >=20 >> From: JD Smith >> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:53:57 -0500 >> Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org >>=20 >> Great, this small patch seems to work. I=E2=80=99ve enabled glyph = checking and will report here if anything untoward comes up. >=20 > Any news? Should I install this now? >=20 > Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 11 08:23:24 2024 Received: (at 68374-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2024 13:23:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46919 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ9no-0006hY-H4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:23:24 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40954) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ9nm-0006gw-7j for 68374-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:23:22 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rZ9nQ-0007RL-N0; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:23:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=X91bnwzSArQnPjkI5VIFN7O0pe/q2dDcwaYmyf0dkxo=; b=SFxppOdihlcJ 9yV4mvrEJXYl8iDcGPayLMQB9KNLUpyts1XSNK/Q4Z1PMO755oTmA/IfMUbnfedBazAzTEwlYx/WT qfYUFECwUBODKvJIPtdW7ZprPs392IwQbZExH4n/naIpqSLaYX/0SmCuIOi6DxUy9j0kNgRGvTvmy g5zBee+qGAURjP4XOGl17oMLuNKpzHEE3lBznmICp54qLrnVhmNfz9h9lVtvegIX87sJ7XLlQD0Vt UYmEUiqIYR5/QTdnA+4e0aldUFQa4JT3BZ6QmHu+gRQf1Y9u4JxA8fppbV4YXb0LW1QOPZPV28aAc xDbgwoQt5IvzlRWAKe7Vug==; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:22:57 +0200 Message-Id: <86o7cnrv7y.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: JD Smith In-Reply-To: <1618120D-5914-424B-80CA-62465B41924A@gmail.com> (message from JD Smith on Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:20:21 -0500) Subject: Re: bug#68374: min-width is not correctly treated by buffer-text-pixel-size References: <831qaomam3.fsf@gnu.org> <6F7F2B38-8340-44B3-9760-F3C9322A06CE@gmail.com> <86v86vs7zu.fsf@gnu.org> <1618120D-5914-424B-80CA-62465B41924A@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 68374-done Cc: 68374-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: JD Smith > Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:20:21 -0500 > Cc: 68374@debbugs.gnu.org > > I haven't noticed anything unusual in a couple weeks of use, so please do. Thanks. Thanks, installed on master, and closing the bug. From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:11:32 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:24:11 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator