I checked things under Linux and Windows (using GCC and VC++ DLL's) and the same problem occurs at the same place, which is a good sign when it comes to memory issues. Basically, the Rcpp::Reference(std::string) constructor that is part of S4_field, or S4_CppOverloadedMethods constructors fails, depending on which comes first (whether there are fields or not). This only happens when gctorture() is turned on, so R must be clobbering an unprotected SEXP somewhere...
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Romain Francois <[email protected]>wrote: > Hmm. I commited 2845 and 2846 today. > > Anyway, if you see it also with 0.9.0 this means more detective work. > > Le 07/01/11 15:05, Douglas Bates a écrit : > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Romain Francois >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Le 05/01/11 18:52, Douglas Bates a écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> I don't know whether this is through error on my part or because of an >>>> "infelicity" in the Rcpp module code but the lme4a package, which now >>>> uses Rcpp modules extensively, ends up with some difficult-to-trace >>>> memory corruption issues. Yesterday i finally bit the bullet and ran >>>> a test with gctorture(TRUE) and valgrind enabled. It takes a very >>>> long time and results in a segfault when trying to load the package. >>>> I enclose the transcript. I should say that this is using Rcpp_0.9.0 >>>> from CRAN, not the SVN version of Rcpp. >>>> >>>> I just got these results this morning (it was running overnight) and >>>> haven't looked at the code in Module.cpp and cache.cpp yet. If it >>>> seems likely that the code is beyond me I can try to work out a >>>> simpler example that triggers the problem. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Doug, >>> >>> Sorry for the delay, I'm not fully operational yet. >>> >>> All this might be related to some code I put in during holidays and did >>> not >>> have a chance to fully test. >>> >>> Can you try with rev 2845 and let me know if you still see the problem. >>> >>> Romain >>> >> >> Regrettably the problem persists with rev 2845 (which was from >> 2011-01-04, is that the one you meant?) but it is also present when >> using Rcpp_0.9.0 >> > > > -- > Romain Francois > Professional R Enthusiast > +33(0) 6 28 91 30 30 > http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr > |- http://bit.ly/fT2rZM : highlight 0.2-5 > |- http://bit.ly/gpCSpH : Evolution of Rcpp code size > `- http://bit.ly/hovakS : RcppGSL initial release > > > _______________________________________________ > Rcpp-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel >
_______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
