search for: untraceable

# Your mailer is set to "none" (default on Windows), # hence we cannot send the bug report directly from R. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs@r-project.org # ###################################################### > x <- rnorm(10) > y <- 1:10 > xyplot(y ~ x) >

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2584 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #6 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Close all resolved bugs after 7.3p1 release

Hello all, Since I got no answer to my first mail, I suspect I did not formulate my question adequately, so I try again. In R, one can debug or trace a function 'foo' with debug(foo) or trace(foo), respectively. This leads to a special treatment of the function 'foo' until one enter undebug(foo) or untrace(foo). I would like to know if there is a convenient way to know at any

trace() seems to be broken in 2.6.1 and R-devel: Try the example from the ?debug man page: > library(methods) > trace("plot", browser, exit=browser, signature = c("track", + "missing")) Error in getFunction(what, where = whereF) : no function "plot" found Okay, it's just an example that doesn't work. Let's try a simpler one,

I''m pleased to pass along news that the Mac OS X DTrace port has been updated in 10.5.3 to fix the issue that caused timer based probes not to fire in the presence of certain untraceable applications. http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/apple_updates_dtrace A big thank you to the folks at Apple for addressing the problem. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/ahl

> On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > >>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson >>>>>> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes: > >> Using: >> >> untrace(methods::conformMethod) >> at <- c(12,4,3,2) >> str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]]) >> ## language omittedSig

Using: untrace(methods::conformMethod) at <- c(12,4,3,2) str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]]) ## language omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing") cc <- 0L trace(methods::conformMethod, tracer = quote({ cc <<- cc + 1L print(cc) if (cc == 31) { ## manually identified untrace(methods::conformMethod)

>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson >>>>> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes: > Using: > > untrace(methods::conformMethod) > at <- c(12,4,3,2) > str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]]) > ## language omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing") > cc <- 0L > trace(methods::conformMethod, tracer =

How do you debug methods of a reference class? I've been using mtrace, which is excellent, but i cannot figure out how to mtrace a reference class method. Maybe there is some other way to debug these, for example with ordinary trace? for now i am only able to use options(error=recover), which is not giving me idea where exactly in the code i am once i am stopped on an error. -- View this

Please note that this is documented in ?trace. "fun" is matched to what, it is a _name_ of the function to be traced, which is traced in the top-level environment. I don't know why it was designed this way, but it is documented in detail, and hence the expected behavior. Debugging is often, and also in R, implemented in the core. Tracing is implemented on top without specific

Dear R-devel, I don't think this is expected : foo <- function() "hello" trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!"))) base::fun # Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace" # Original definition: # function() "hello" # # ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object)) `untrace()` has the same behavior. This is

>>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes: > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson > >>>>>> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes: > > > >> Using: > >> > >>

>>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:33:10 +0200 writes: >>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes: >> > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson

In 'conformMethod', there is another instance of omittedSig & <something about signature[omittedSig]> . It just affects error message. Original: ? ? if(any(is.na(match(signature[omittedSig], c("ANY", "missing"))))) { ? ? ? ? bad <- omittedSig & is.na(match(signature[omittedSig], c("ANY", "missing"))) After r76756: ? ? if(any(iiN

I've found that reference class objects tend to behave like plain old environments wrt field access, unless a method on e.g. $<- is explicitly defined. Here is a code snippet: library(methods) Foo <- setRefClass("Foo") foo <- Foo$new() foo$a <- 2 # why does this succeed? not a valid field! ## set a silly $<- method setReplaceMethod("$", "Foo",

Hi Tomas, The doc indeed describes `what` as "the name, possibly quote()d, of a function to be traced or untraced". This is a good argument not to change the function and make it behave more like debug. However the doc also tells us "A call to trace allows you to insert debugging code (e.g., a call to browser or recover) at chosen places in any function" and "The trace

I run checks with R-devel rev. 76756 on several of my packages which use S4, with no ill effects. With the risk of not adding much, it seems that Martin's example, which I repeat below, suggests a crossover between several "signatures" involved here - the signature of the generic, the signature of the method (the argument for setMethod()), and the signature of the function object

>>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:05:49 +0200 writes: >>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:33:10 +0200 writes: >>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes: >>> > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at

..._PTRACE_H +#include <sys/ptrace.h> +#endif #ifdef HAVE_PRIV_H #include <priv.h> /* For setpflags() and __PROC_PROTECT */ #endif @@ -40,4 +43,9 @@ platform_disable_tracing(int strict) if (setpflags(__PROC_PROTECT, 1) != 0 && strict) fatal("unable to make the process untraceable"); #endif +#ifdef PT_DENY_ATTACH + /* Mac OS X */ + if (ptrace(PT_DENY_ATTACH, 0, 0, 0) == -1 && strict) + fatal("unable to set PT_DENY_ATTACH"); +#endif } -- Darren Tucker (dtucker at zip.com.au) GPG key 11EAA6FA / A86E 3E07 5B19 5880 E860 37F4 9357 ECEF 11EA A6FA (new...

...ing both problems: 1. Refusal to join the domain. I modified well the key in my Windows, I was kind enough to change domain. That recognized it because I fell at request of account of the domain samba. But at the time of entering my root and its password, I have the error message: "name of untraceable user ". The root account exists well. But on the other hand not the account of the machine. If I enter well the machine the users samba ( Adduser then smbpasswd), I manage to enter the domain. Nevertheless, on my smb.conf, I indeed have this: add machine script = /srv/samba/addmachine.sh...