Brian,
On 11 September 2009 at 16:54, Brian Gough wrote:
| At Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:55:25 -0500,
| Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Tough one. SEGV is bad. On the other hand, the GSL RMGs came in a
'framework'
| > so there may be numerous entry points.
| >
| > Brian, any thougths?
|
| Hello,
|
| By
At Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:55:25 -0500,
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Tough one. SEGV is bad. On the other hand, the GSL RMGs came in a 'framework'
> so there may be numerous entry points.
>
> Brian, any thougths?
Hello,
By convention we've never checked whether pointers passed in by the
user are actua
On 10 September 2009 at 12:48, Matthew Vernon wrote:
| Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|
|
| > Or do you claim that not-using
| >
| >gsl_rng_alloc (gsl_rng_default)
| >
| > leading to a SEGV is a invalid behaviour? I am much less convinced that
that
| > is a valid bug report -- it's much li
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Or do you claim that not-using
gsl_rng_alloc (gsl_rng_default)
leading to a SEGV is a invalid behaviour? I am much less convinced that that
is a valid bug report -- it's much like using un-alloc'ed pointer types in
my book.
That is my claim, yes; I'd content t
On 9 September 2009 at 10:27, Matthew Vernon wrote:
| Hi,
|
| If you call any of the random-number functions in GSL and forget to
| initialise the random number generator (or initialise it wrongly), GSL
| SEGVs. This is poor - it should produce an error message. I deal with
| queries from peop
Package: libgsl0-dev
Version: 1.11+dfsg-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
If you call any of the random-number functions in GSL and forget to
initialise the random number generator (or initialise it wrongly), GSL
SEGVs. This is poor - it should produce an error message. I deal with
queries from people th
6 matches
Mail list logo
