similar to: documentation of .C (PR#9948)

Dear all, (sorry I got the wrong button for subscribing a minute ago) At the moment I'm writing on a package for random field simulation that I'd like to make publically availabe in near future. To this end I've asked Martin Maechler to have a look at my R-code. He was very surprised about how I perform the ".C"-calls, and encouraged me to make this request for comments.

Hi, I get an "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)" from valgrind when using 'solve' in combination with some simple C-code. (I did not use other functions of R besides 'solve'.) In detail: running R --vanilla -d "valgrind --tool=memcheck --memcheck:leak-check=yes --num-callers=20 " and calling .Call("XXX") nd <- 3

Full_Name: Martin Schlather Version: 2.10.0 OS: linux Submission from: (NULL) (91.3.220.231) Bug summary: some functions behave differently for NAs when valgrind is used in R, e.g. sum and prod Bug demonstration: --- without valgrind ---- > sum(c(NA,1)[1]) [1] NA --- with valgrind ---- > sum(c(NA,1)[1]) [1] NaN R call with valgrind: R -d "valgrind --tool=memcheck

Hi, Please see the email exchanges below. I am having trouble generating output that is large enough for our needs, specifically when using the GaussRF function. However, when I wrote Dr. Schlather (the author of the GaussRF function), he indicated that there is also a limit imposed by R itself. Is this something that we can overcome? Thank you very much for any assistance you may provde.

Full_Name: Benjamin Tyner Version: 2.6.0 RC 2007-10-01 r43043 OS: WinXP Submission from: (NULL) (171.161.224.10) platform i386-pc-mingw32 arch i386 os mingw32 system i386, mingw32 status RC major

Martin Maechler asked me to restate my problem. Compiling the file (slightly modified w.r.t. the formerly attached file) that can be found at http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/~martin/filetransfer/xswms2d.Rd terminates with the error message ******* Syntax error: mismatched or missing brackets in /----- ..... \----- when compiled by R CMD Rdconv -t txt xswms2d.Rd However, the file does

Hi, I have problems when calling fft_factor and fft_work directly in my C-code. Martin Maechler already told me that I should not do this -- anyway, the code works fine if the length of the vector is a multiple of 2,3,5. If the length of the vector has different form I get, in some cases, a segmentation fault when work and iwork are freed (I use C's malloc to allocate memory for work and

Dear R Core Team, I'm wondering whether it is useful that every package should allow for help(PackageName), giving some general information about the package (more/nicer than library(help=PackageName)). This man page may include some mathematical or statistical background, or contain a guideline for the package. Cheers, Martin -- Martin Schlather email:

Hi, I have attached a larger Rd file that causes an error when compiled by R CMD Rdconv -t txt xswms2d.Rd (for example). If the size is reduced the error vanishes, see the lines 230 and 527 in the file. I could not find an error within my text and so my guess is that there is some buffer overflow within the compiler. If it is me who has caused the error please let me know -- and many

Just found out [R 0.63, standard -v -n] : > rm(list=ls()) > gc() free total Ncells 96538 200000 Vcells 214008 250000 > hist(runif(50000)) Error: heap memory (1953 Kb) exhausted [needed 390 Kb more] which is a bit astonishing given that I still have room for 214000 double's > u1 <- runif(50000) > u2 <- runif(50000) > gc()

Full_Name: Martin Schlather Version: 2.2.0 and alpha 2.3.0 (06/3/29) OS: Linux (x86_64 and Intel) Submission from: (NULL) (139.11.183.106) > min(.Machine$integer.max, 10^20) [1] 1e+20 > min(as.integer(.Machine$integer.max), 10^20) [1] 1e+20 but > min(.Machine$integer.max + 0, 10^20) [1] 2147483647 > min(as.integer(.Machine$integer.max - 1), 10^20) [1] 2147483646 >

I have a huge matrix on which I need to do a simple (elementwise) transformation. Two of these matrices cannot fit in the memory, so I cannot do this in R. I thought of writing some C code to do this and calling it using .C with DUP=FALSE. All I need is a simple for loop that replaces elements with their new value, something like void transform(double *a, int *lengtha) { int i; for (i=0;

Hi, The help for `assign' says In all the assignment operator expressions, `x' can be a name or an expression defining a part of an object to be replaced (e.g., `z[[1]]'). The name does not need to be quoted, though it can be. So I would expect that by a<-1:4 assign("a[1]",2) the first component of a gets the value 2, but the object "a[1]" is

Hi Everyone, I have a piece of C code that uses R_alloc, and so I set DUP=TRUE in the call using ".C". As I understand it this takes a copy of each object passed to my function. If these objects are large then this could be expensive. My question is, if I rewrote the code to use .Call, would I avoid this duplication by using the objects themselves (they are not modified in the code)

Hello, I'm trying to create my own C code for use within R. While optimizing the code I've noticed that even while only using pointers to get my data to C the time needed still depends on data (vector) size. To test this, I've created an empty C function to which I've send vectors containing various sizes of elements. The time needed for each call is measured and plotted. I would

Hi All, I have a 75GB collection of data, including a lot of duplicated files, on a NTFS network drive. I want to backup that data across a DSL link to a Linux host. Currently I use cwrsync on a Windows machine to act as server to the Linux rsync client. I want to avoid transferring duplicated data, as the DSL link is a far more significant factor than computation/disk IO. I can't work

Dear all, Is there a reason, why there is no +-operator for aes (i.e. uneval) objects (as there is for themes and gg objects)? I had a couple of cases where such an operator would be useful, for instance to combine the result of aes and aes_string in functions. Any flaws with the following proposition: `+.uneval` <- function(e1, e2) { dup <- names(e1) %in% names(e2) if (any(dup)) {

I am having some difficulty understanding the implication of lazy evaluation mixed with DUP=F in a .Fortran call. In qr.qty from base DUP is not used as an argument so defaults to T. I am calling qr.qty with a very large array and would like to set DUP=F in the .Fortran call so that qr.qty would be defined as copied below. Is there some risk that a variable used as the argument in the original

On Tuesday 06 February 2001 12:36, Dr. Jens Oehlschlägel wrote: > I like the idea. Why don't you call duplicated.matrix() directly in > unique.matrix() and duplicated.data.frame() in unique.data.frame() ? > > Jens Oehlschlägel Good point. I guess I got carried away with using methods (having just gotten the hang of the concept). :-) Anyway, here's a corrected version:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 here the failures. Anyway there is a suggested "revision" to use on PowerPC 32bit on Linux ? [...] llvm[0]: ***** Completed Release Build + make check llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/home/llvm/work/src/llvm-2.8/test' Making a new site.exp file... Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest