On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dominick Samperi <djsamp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Douglas Bates <ba...@stat.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Douglas Bates <ba...@stat.wisc.edu> wrote: >> > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Dominick Samperi <djsamp...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> 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... >> > >> > Thanks, Dominick. I too have been working on tracking this down and >> > got to that point. If you follow a little further you will find that >> > it is the evaluation of the R function getCurrentErrorMessage in the >> > Rcpp::Evaluator::run method where things start to go bad, as far as I >> > can see. I hope to be able to isolate this today as I need a working >> > version of lme4a by tomorrow. >> >> My current theory is that Rcpp_cache is being blown away by the >> garbage collector. Because we want this to be persistent I think the >> simplest thing to do is to assign it to a name like .Rcpp_cache in the >> namespace during the .onLoad function. I'll try that. > > I tested this theory by cutting out the Evaluator code and it appears that > the cache is not harmed by gctorture(). I suspect that the problem may > be earlier in the chain of construction, either a SEXP that was not > preserved, > or an aliasing problem. It appears that init_Rcpp_cache() is called twice > at start-up, which does not seem right, but suppressing the second attempt > does not fix the problem.
The second call was eliminated in the SVN archive a couple of days ago. I have gotten around some of the problems with the garbage collection by redefining how the Rcpp_cache variable is created (not yet checked in) so it progresses further. I still think that there is a point where a promise in not being evaluated before being used but haven't found it yet. With lazyLoad enabled the first time that you find a variable in the namespace it will have a PROMSXP typeof field and you need to invoke Rf_eval on it to actually get the value. There are several variables from the Rcpp namespace being used here, which is why I am suspicious that an unevaluated promise is somehow getting used. >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Romain Francois >> >> <rom...@r-enthusiasts.com> >> >> 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 >> >>>> <rom...@r-enthusiasts.com> 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 >> >>> Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org >> >>> >> >>> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
