[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#18347: 24.3.93; Incomplete splash screen display on Cygwin-w32 build
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#18347: 24.3.93; Incomplete splash screen display on Cygwin-w32 build |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:41:58 +0300 |
> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:08:21 -0400
> From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
> CC: 18347@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> On 8/29/2014 2:25 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:51:06 -0400
> >> From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
> >>
> >> --- lisp/startup.el 2014-07-08 09:17:09 +0000
> >> +++ lisp/startup.el 2014-08-28 20:07:20 +0000
> >> @@ -1812,7 +1812,7 @@
> >> (let (chosen-frame)
> >> ;; MS-Windows needs this to have a chance to make the initial
> >> ;; frame visible.
> >> - (if (eq system-type 'windows-nt)
> >> + (if (eq window-system 'w32)
> >> (sit-for 0 t))
> >> (dolist (frame (append (frame-list) (list (selected-frame))))
> >> (if (and (frame-visible-p frame)
> >
> > It is fundamentally wrong to use window-system the variable in such
> > circumstances (or almost any other). Please use the function instead.
>
> OK. But could you explain why? TIA.
Because we don't want to risk assigning it a value. Also, the
function can accept a frame argument, thus giving you a chance to
inquire about a specific frame (different frames can have different
window-system values).
And if you use window-system as a predicate (not in this case,
obviously), you should use the various display-*-p predicates instead.
> >> Is this still OK for the native Windows build? If so, is it OK to
> >> install it in the release branch?
> >
> > Yes and yes. Although I'd urge you to try to figure out why this is
> > needed in the cygwin-w32 build (the native-build problem which led to
> > this code manifested itself in a rather different way, see bug#16014).
>
> Actually, the visual symptom I'm describing (failure of the logo to
> appear) is identical to what Juanma reported in that bug.
OK, but that's not what your original description said.
> Your message in that bug discussion says, "It's again that timing
> thing with making the initial frame visible." The "again" suggests
> that there is an earlier bug report or discussion about that. Can
> you give me a reference or just explain what you meant by that?
Bug#14841, I think.
Basically, since creating a frame on w32 takes some time until the OS
sets up the message pump for the new frame, Lisp code that creates a
frame and immediately proceeds with manipulating the new frame might
sometimes need sit-for to let the dust settle.