This indicates that your PROTECTs and UNPROTECTs are out of balance (by
one, looking at the numbers) in the .Call (which I assume is to your own
code?).
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Terry Therneau wrote:
> I'm testing out some changes to survreg and got the following output,
the
> likes of which I've never seen before:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23)
> Copyright (C) 2008 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing
> ISBN 3-900051-07-0
>
> R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.
> Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details.
>
> Natural language support but running in an English locale
>
> R is a collaborative project with many contributors.
> Type 'contributors()' for more information and
> 'citation()' on how to cite R or R packages in publications.
>
> Type 'demo()' for some demos, 'help()' for on-line help, or
> 'help.start()' for an HTML browser interface to help.
> Type 'q()' to quit R.
>
>> source('setup.s')
>> source('mktest1.s')
>> fit1w <- survreg(Surv(time, status) ~x, test1,
dist='weibull')
> Warning: stack imbalance in '.Call', 26 then 27
> Warning: stack imbalance in '<-', 24 then 25
> Warning: stack imbalance in '{', 22 then 23
> Warning: stack imbalance in 'if', 20 then 21
> Warning: stack imbalance in '.Call', 23 then 24
> Warning: stack imbalance in '<-', 21 then 22
> Warning: stack imbalance in '{', 18 then 20
> Warning: stack imbalance in '<-', 12 then 14
> Warning: stack imbalance in 'if', 10 then 12
> Warning: stack imbalance in '{', 8 then 10
> Warning: stack imbalance in '<-', 2 then 4
>> traceback()
> No traceback available
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> The "setup" file simply attaches the directory containing my
test version of
> the survival code, and mktest1.s is
> test1 <- data.frame(time= c(4, 3,1,1,2,2,3),
> status=c(1,NA,1,0,1,1,0),
> x= c(0, 2,1,1,1,0,0))
>
> the simple test data set from the appendix of my book, for which I know ALL
the
> answers.
>
> There has been a change to the C code. Is this possibly due to a messed
up
> calling chain? I've converted from "Chambers" style callback
to Rinternals
> style (much cleaner and less mysterious), and the result works well in
Splus.
> I thought I'd made it through the hard part....
>
> Hints appreciated, after which I can give more details.
>
> Terry Therneau
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
--
Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595