Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Hi Seth,
Thanks for the follow-up.
On 31 January 2009 at 06:59, Seth Falcon wrote:
| * On 2009-01-30 at 22:38 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Turns out, as so often, that there was a regular bug lurking which is now
| > fixed in RDieHarder 0.1.1. But I still would like to understand exactly
what
| > is different so that --slave was able to trigger it when --vanilla,
| > --no-save, ... did not.
| >
| > [ The library() vs require() issue may have been a red herring. ]
|
| Without telling us any details about the nature of the bug you found,
| it is difficult to speculate. If the bug was in your C code and
| memory related, it could simply be that the two different run paths
| resulted in different allocation patterns, one of which triggered the
| bug.
Yes yes and yes :) It was in C, and it was memory related and it dealt
getting results out of the library to which the package interfaces.
But short of looking at the source, is there any documentation on what
--slave does differently?
Dirk
Not really (and you know where to find the sources...). But sometimes it
only takes one memory allocation more or less to shift the effect of a
memory bug to a completely different point in space an time.
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalga...@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
