[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches
From: |
Barry OReilly |
Subject: |
bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:59:22 -0400 |
The last patch I indicated is my best guess safe patch that solves the --reverse-video symptom I care about. To summarize my rationale: an unconditional call to make-face-x-resource-internal was moved down into face-spec-recalc, but at least one other caller of face-spec-recalc clearly doesn't want an unconditional call to make-face-x-resource-internal. Moving the make-face-x-resource-internal call back up one call level to the caller which the offending patch touched thus seems right.
Matthias, in your patch, that same make-face-x-resource-internal call was moved to an earlier line in the same face-spec-recalc function, so it's not obvious how to reconcile your patch with mine. The concern I raised applies equally to your patch. Maybe you could give my patch a go to see if it has any effect on your ill symptom. If not, then perhaps you have an idea about reconciling the patches?
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, (continued)
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Barry OReilly, 2014/03/24
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Clemens Schüller, 2014/03/24
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Barry OReilly, 2014/03/25
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/25
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Barry OReilly, 2014/03/25
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Matthias Dahl, 2014/03/25
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Barry OReilly, 2014/03/26
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Stefan Monnier, 2014/03/27
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches,
Barry OReilly <=
- bug#16434: bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Matthias Dahl, 2014/03/28
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/26
- bug#16694: bugs #16694/#16378: Patches, Glenn Morris, 2014/03/26