search for: reprotect

...; > but I believe it has to be > > > PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx); > > > because PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() returns void. > > Yes indeed, thank you Kirill! > > note that the same is true for its partner function|macro REPROTECT() > > However, as PROTECT() is used a gazillion times and > PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() is used about 100 x less, and PROTECT() > *does* return the SEXP, > I do wonder why PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() and REPROTECT() could not > behave the same as PROTECT() > (a view at the source code seem...

What is the best way to grow an R return object in writing a C function using the Rdefines.h macros. In my application, the final size of the return object is not known during construction. My understanding is that each time I grow an R object I have to use PROTECT() again, probably before UNPROTECTing the smaller version. However, due to the stack character of the PROTECT mechanism, UNPROTECT

Hi I've noted a minor inconsistency in the documentation: Current R-exts reads s = PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx); but I believe it has to be PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx); because PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() returns void. Best regards Kirill

...S->R_env), >>> &ipx); >>> >>> > because PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() returns void. >>> >>> Yes indeed, thank you Kirill! >>> >>> note that the same is true for its partner >>> function|macro REPROTECT() >>> >>> However, as PROTECT() is used a gazillion times and >>> PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() is used about 100 x less, and >>> PROTECT() *does* return the SEXP, I do wonder why >>> PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() and REPROTECT() could not behave...

...->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx); > but I believe it has to be > PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx); > because PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() returns void. Yes indeed, thank you Kirill! note that the same is true for its partner function|macro REPROTECT() However, as PROTECT() is used a gazillion times and PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() is used about 100 x less, and PROTECT() *does* return the SEXP, I do wonder why PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() and REPROTECT() could not behave the same as PROTECT() (a view at the source code seems to suggest a change to be trivia...

...to be >> >> > PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx); >> >> > because PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() returns void. >> >> Yes indeed, thank you Kirill! >> >> note that the same is true for its partner function|macro REPROTECT() >> >> However, as PROTECT() is used a gazillion times and >> PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() is used about 100 x less, and PROTECT() >> *does* return the SEXP, >> I do wonder why PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() and REPROTECT() could not >> behave the same as PROTECT() >> (a...

Hello. I'm trying to read a delimited file. I'm a little new to the R api. In the program, I do something like this... /*****************************/ SEXP retval; PROTECT(retval = allocMatrix(STRSXP,1,names.dim)); int r_eltctr = 0; while(!myfile.eof()) { SET_LENGTH(retval,r_eltctr+num_of_fields); for(int i = 0;numofcolumns; ++i) { INTEGER(retval)[r_eltctr++] = 1;/*some

Hi folks. I posted this question a few days ago, but maybe it got lost because of the code I included with it. I'm having a problem using the SET_LENGTH() macro in an R extension I'm writing in C++. In a function within the extension I use SET_LENGTH() to resize R vectors so as to allow the concatenation of single values onto the vectors -- it's a "push back" function to

...post in Stackoverflow http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7458364/growing-an-r-matrix-inside-a-c-loop/7458516#7458516 I understood that it was necesary to (1) create the "child lists" and protecting them with PROTECT_WITH_INDEX, and (2) changing its size using SETLENGTH (Rf_lengthgets) and REPROTECT ing the lists in order to tell the GC that the vectors had change. THIRD: Once my two vectors are done ("id" and "lambda"), assign them to the i-th element of the "mother list" L1 using SET_VECTOR_ELT(VECTOR_ELT(L1,i), 0, duplicate(id)); SET_VECTOR_ELT(VECTOR_ELT(...

...tackTop >= (n) ? \ (void) (R_PPStackTop -= (n)) : Rf_unprotect(n)) #define PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(x,i) do { \ PROTECT(x); \ *(i) = R_PPStackTop - 1; \ } while (0) #define REPROTECT(x,i) ( (void) (R_PPStack[i] = x) ) Unfortunately, one can't just change the definitions in Rinternals.h. Some uses of PROTECT are in places where R_PPStack, etc. aren't visible. Instead, one can redefine them at the end of Defn.h, where these variables are declared. That alone also doesn...

...e subtly, reverse the order of the flush for kmap_atomic. Instead of flushing on establishing a mapping, flush on clearing a mapping. This eliminates the possibility of leaving stale kmap entries which may still have valid TLB mappings. This is required for direct mode hypervisors, which need to reprotect all mappings of a given page when changing the page type from a normal page to a protected page (such as a page table or descriptor table page). But it also provides some nicer semantics for real hardware, by providing extra debug-proofing against using stale mappings, as well as ensuring that no...

Can please someone familiar with the R internals enlighten me on the following strange observation: # this is IDENTICAL as expected identical(substitute(substitute()), substitute(substitute())) # but NOT EQUAL !???? substitute(substitute()) == substitute(substitute()) # I originally found it on t2 <- function(e){ substitute(e) } t2(substitute(x==y, list(y=y)))[1] # I would expect all

Hello, This is a question that probably reveals my lack of understanding. In a C function (call it cfunc), i created a SEXP, called S, and then called R_PreserveObject on S. I returned the SEXP to the calling R function (call it rfunc). Note, I didn't call R_ReleaseObject on S. v <- .Call("cfunc") So, are the following statements correct 1. S is 'doubly' protected

[Disclaimer: what is below reflects my understanding from reading the R source, others will correct where deemed necessary] On 1/2/10 12:00 PM, r-devel-request at r-project.org wrote: > > Hello, > > We are currently making lots of changes to Rcpp (see the open Rcpp > mailing list if interested [1] in the details). > > We are now using [2] R_PreserveObject and R_ReleaseObject

Good morning! I recently implemented a KD tree in JAVA for faster kernel density estimation (part of the code follows). It went well. To hook it with R, however, has proved more difficult. My question is: is it possible to implement the algorithm in R? My impression seems to indicate no as the code requires a complete class-object framework that R does not support. But is there an R package or

...The entry points rgb2hsv and hsv2rgb have been migrated to package grDevices and so are no longer available. o R_GE_version has been increased to 10 and name2col removed (use R_GE_str2col instead). R internal colour codes are now defined using the typedef rcolor. o The REPROTECT macro now checks that the protect index is valid. o Several non-API entry points no longer used by R have been removed, including the Fortran entry points chol, chol2inv, cg, ch and rg, and the C entry points Brent_fmin, fft_factor and fft_work. o If a .External call is...

...The entry points rgb2hsv and hsv2rgb have been migrated to package grDevices and so are no longer available. o R_GE_version has been increased to 10 and name2col removed (use R_GE_str2col instead). R internal colour codes are now defined using the typedef rcolor. o The REPROTECT macro now checks that the protect index is valid. o Several non-API entry points no longer used by R have been removed, including the Fortran entry points chol, chol2inv, cg, ch and rg, and the C entry points Brent_fmin, fft_factor and fft_work. o If a .External call is...

At OLS I gave a talk on some of the Xen scalability inhibitors, and one of these was writable page tables. We went over why the feature does not scale, but just as important, we found that the uniprocessor case does not provide any advantage either. These tests were done on x86_64, so I wanted to run the 1-way test on 32 bit to show the same problem. So, I have run with writable PTs and