I can't replicate the reported UBSAN issues on my macOS machine (R-devel compiled with LLVM clang 4.0.1, with address + undefined behavior sanitizers active).
The warnings look somewhat dubious to me: for example, the first warning: function_pointers.h:99:12: runtime error: call to function a1_fn(arma::Col<double> const&, arma::Col<double> const&) through pointer to incorrect function type 'arma::Col<double> (*)(const arma::Col<double> &, const arma::Col<double> &)' /tmp/RtmpObvRHm/sourceCpp-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-0.12.11/sourcecpp_96075e756157/growth_model_functions.cpp:7: note: a1_fn(arma::Col<double> const&, arma::Col<double> const&) defined here If I'm reading that correctly, you have the following types: Pointer: (arma::Col<double> const&, arma::Col<double> const& ) Actual: arma::Col<double> (*)(const arma::Col<double> &, const arma::Col<double> &) and those look compatible to me (the only difference is the ordering of the 'const &' printing in each case). Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems like this might just be a bug in the version of UBSAN used on the CRAN build machines? The fact that this error is not seen with gcc, only with clang, supports that hypothesis, so I think you can safely ignore those errors. (Perhaps this was a bug in Clang 4.0.0 that was fixed in Clang 4.0.1) Kevin On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Helske, Jouni <jouni.hel...@jyu.fi> wrote: > I got some warnings on CRAN with UBSAN relating to my use of user supplied > C++ function using Xptr: https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/ > pub/bdr/memtests/clang-UBSAN/bssm/build_vignettes.log > > I can't see anything wrong in my codes, although I have just tried to > mimic some Dirk's Xptr examples without fully understanding what is going > on, so maybe I actually do something silly. But I then noticed that Rcpp > also has similar kind of warnings (https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/ > pub/bdr/memtests/clang-UBSAN/Rcpp/build_vignettes.log), so I wonder if > these are anything to worry about? I tested my package on GCC based address > sanitizer using docker, and did not get any warnings with that setup, which > makes me think that maybe it's just some clang issue? Some googling seems > to support this theory: https://stackoverflow.com/ > questions/43220926/call-to-function-unknown-through- > pointer-to-incorrect-function-type > > Best, > > Jouni > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
