[squeak-dev] Latest VM appears to mess with initial window size
tim at rowledge.org
Mon May 30 17:02:13 UTC 2022
Sorry if I wasn't clear - it's the *host* window size that is messed up for me.
> On 2022-05-30, at 2:40 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de> wrote:
> Hi Tim --
> Are you referring to the host-window size or the system-window size? I think you mean the latter. Whether or not the scale factor is involved, you can check by looking at what is selected in "Extras > Scale Factor" menu.
> I am not sure that I really understand what you mean. However, there are two hard-coded numbers in RealEstateAgent class >> #strictlyStaggeredInitialFrameFor:... which we did not adjust to the scale factor.
> "Number to be staggered at each corner (less on small screens)"
> maxLevel := allowedArea area > 300000 ifTrue:  ifFalse: .
> "Amount by which to stagger (less on small screens)"
> grid := allowedArea area > 500000 ifTrue:  ifFalse: .
> Would you apply a "* self scaleFactor" to those areas and see if the problem gets fixed? :-) Maybe also the grid.
> This is most likely not a VM issue but related to a feature in newer VMs. It might be that a newer VM will actually deliver that platformScaleFactor which will then set the image-side uiScaleFactor which will then modify the "RealEstateAgent scaleFactor" which will then result in bigger default-window areas and thus hit those magic boundaries. Not sure.
>> Am 29.05.2022 20:54:38 schrieb tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>:
>> I'm just trying the latest release VM (ARMv8 on a Pi in this case) and it seems to be doing Odd Things with the window size.
>> The same image on two different Pis opens with different window sizes. One Pi has a 1920 at 180 screen and the initial window is notably smaller than what it was when I saved the image, the other has a 1920 at 1440 screen and the initial window size is what I set. That size is not larger than the 1920 at 1080 screen, by the way. To the best of my recollection this is new (mis)behaviour.
>> We've always done some startup checks in the VM to fit the window within the available display limits but I don't remember previously over-riding the requested size this aggressively. Has anyone changed this code recently? Or is this a side effect of recent scale factor stuff? I can't spot any suspicious code in the image right now.
>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>> A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned a man with a glass eye named Ralph
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- Always responds to "Make Money Fast" postings on the Net.
More information about the Squeak-dev