[Rd] reference counting problem in .Primitive's?

luke at stat.uiowa.edu
Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:05:39 -0000

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, William Dunlap wrote:

> I think the following rather wierd expressions show a problem in how
> some of the .Primitive functions evaluate their arguments.  I haven't
> yet thought of a way that a nonabusive user might run into this problem.
> In each case the first argument, x, is modified in the course of
> evaluating the second argument and then modified x gets used
> as the first argument:
>
>> x<-as.integer(1:5); y <- x + { x[3]<-33L ; 1L } ; y
> [1]  2  3 34  5  6
>> x<-2^(0:4) ; y <- log(x, { x[3]<-64 ; 2 }) ; y
> [1] 0 1 6 3 4
>
> The reason I think it looks like a sharing problem (and not an order
> of evaluation problem) is that if your modification to x causes it to
> use a new block of memory then the unmodified version of x gets
> used as the first argument.  E.g.,
>
>> x<-as.integer(1:5) ; y <- x + { x[3]<-33.3; 1L} ; y
> [1] 2 3 4 5 6
>
> I haven't yet thought of a way that a nonabusive user might run
> into this problem.

You are probably right.  I have not yet looked at the code but am
virtually certain it does not try to temporarily bump up the NAMED
values on argument values.  Doing so would cure this but probably at
serious cost to performance, as NAMED values of 2 cannot be brought
down again and so cause copying on next modify. (Might be worth
running some tests on that though to see what the cost would be).

I'm not sure if it is written anywhere that argunments of primitives
(BUILTINS in articular as those are always strict; SPECIALS can be
non-strict but log is strict) are evaluated in any particular order.
All these examples are consistent with _some_ evaluation order, but
not the same one.  It might be possible to show that the results
obtained in these situations will always be consistent with some
evaluation order, in which case documenting that order of evaluation
is unspecified would be good enough form me.  It may also be possible
that an order that does compound expressions first and then symbols
would also solve the issue (I don't think I would want to do this in
the interpreter though because of the performance overhead.)

luke


>
> Bill Dunlap
> TIBCO Software Inc - Spotfire Division
> wdunlap tibco.com
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

--
Luke Tierney
Chair, Statistics and Actuarial Science
Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
University of Iowa                  Phone:             319-335-3386
Department of Statistics and        Fax:               319-335-3017
    Actuarial Science
241 Schaeffer Hall                  email:      luke at stat.uiowa.edu
Iowa City, IA 52242                 WWW:  http://www.stat.uiowa.edu