On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > On 26 February 2014 at 12:26, Thell Fowler wrote: > | BTW - what was the fix/issue you tackled yesterday? Possibly any relation? > > Unrelated, mostly, as it was a for loop with iterators using comparison > (wrongly) and arithmetic on the iterator object. In that case using > old-school indices worked more reliably. Somewhat related in the sense that > unnecessary complexity was added by trying to be clever via iterators. > > Here we don't know. It could be something in our backend, or it could be your > code. > > Dirk > > -- > Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
Good point regarding 'being clever' with the iterators. Here's a small reproducible sample of without _anything_ else going on... https://gist.github.com/Thell/9231866 Output:: > # Via Rcpp > rcpp_BadIter(1) Initializing: state.begin addr: 0x1d96b70 state_iter addr: 0x1d96b70 Accessing: state.begin addr: 0x1d96b70 state_iter addr: 0x1d96b70 > # Via R > bi <- make_BadIter(1) Initializing: state.begin addr: 0x24225d0 state_iter addr: 0x24225d0 > bi$access( ) Accessing: state.begin addr: 0x4108c70 state_iter addr: 0x24225d0 [1] 0 It looks like it is on the back-end to me... -- Sincerely, Thell _______________________________________________ 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
