Re: Does Emacs wm-window handling misbehave?

[Mathias Dahl]

>  I tried this on Ubuntu 7.10 with metacity but did not get any error.  You can
>  check if the timestamp Emacs sends corresponds to one of those in the error
>  message by printing it out in the function x_ewmh_activate_frame in xterm.c
>  (i.e. printf("%u\n", last_user_time); ).  However, that function is not 
> called
>  unless you call x-focus-frame.

Oooh, I'd rather not dig into the C code, scary... :) However, if it
will help solve this problem I might give it a shot.

>  > Window manager warning: last_focus_time (262538802) is greater than
>  > comparison timestamp (4020640236).  This most likely represents a
>  > buggy client sending inaccurate timestamps in messages such as
>  > _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW.  Trying to work around...
>
>  It actually don't make sense, as 262538802 is not greater than 4020640236.

Don't look at me, it's not me who generates those messages :)

>  You might have the same problem as the bug
>  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=392889.  There is a lot of
>  discussion in the beginning but the hang bug is discussed at the end.

A lot of text, yes...

>  And then there is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224611, but it
>  doesn't sound like that one.

Agree.

>  It is strange that I can't reproduce the problem, I have the same system as
>  you.  It must be something in the configuration that triggers this bug.

Yes, this is strange... And even more strange is that the recipe
[(x-focus-frame (selected-frame))] that generated the problem
yesterday does not work today... And when I think of it I haven't got
any single problem today... I hate this...

>  > Window manager warning: 0x40000a4 (emacs - ma) appears to be one of
>  > the offending windows with a timestamp of 262538802.  Working
>  > around...
>  >
>  > As you can see, again an Emacs window is mentioned.
>
>  Can you configrm that the window id belongs to Emacs?

If you mean "emacs - ma" above, yes. "ma" is a truncated Emacs buffer
name. In other tests there have been names such as ".emacs" or other
buffers that was visible at the time.