[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes]
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes] |
Date: |
Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:45:09 -0500 |
This patch removes the bug. But I am not very familiar with the
window code, so if someone could check that this is correct, it'd be
great.
That is part of a loop which aims to
/* Look at one sibling at a time,
moving away from this window in both directions alternately,
and take as much as we can get without deleting that sibling. */
It tries to calculate precisely how much space it can take from each
sibling without causing it to be deleted:
int this_one = ((*sizefun) (next)
- window_min_size (XWINDOW (next),
horiz_flag, 0, &fixed_p));
If taking that much space causes the sibling to be deleted, I would
say that is a bug in the calculation of this_one. The value must
be too large.
Can you figure out why it is too large, and what the correct value
should be?
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], (continued)
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], Chong Yidong, 2006/02/18
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], martin rudalics, 2006/02/18
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], Chong Yidong, 2006/02/18
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], martin rudalics, 2006/02/19
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], martin rudalics, 2006/02/20
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], Richard Stallman, 2006/02/27
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], Kim F. Storm, 2006/02/19
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/19
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes], Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/19
- Re: address@hidden: check_min_window_sizes],
Richard M. Stallman <=