[Rcpp-devel] Have I noticed memory management bug in RcppArmadillo or is this the intended behaviour?
slava.razbash at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 04:48:10 CET 2011
I don't think that what I was observing was a memory leak.
I have ran the functions provided by Dirk. I have also used gc() as
suggested by Davor. The memory "used", as reported by gc(), was the
same before and after running fRcppArma() in a loop. Although the
amount reported by Task Manager was different. However, in this:
StackOverflow post, where Martin Morgan writes that "at times the task
manager's notion of memory use might not accurately reflect the memory
actually in use by R".
For fRcpp() and fRC(), there is a very slight difference in memory
"used" before and after gc().
I also ran the functions in the order: fRC(), fRcpp() and fRcppArma()
all in one R session. The memory usage reported by Task Manager
increased most for fRC(), less for fRcpp() and even less for
Memory used by fRcpp() and fRcppArma() did not increase with time.
fRC() cause task manager to report two step-ups in memory usage.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:
> On 28 October 2011 at 16:38, Davor Cubranic wrote:
> | Instead of looking at Task Manager or Top, could you also look at the output
> | of "gc(TRUE)" before and after running the microbenchmark?
> | Or even use mallinfo for full details of memory allocations
> | (http://rforge.net/mallinfo/files/, and there is a thread illustrating its use
> | at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.r.devel/28945).
> Go ahead, I await your results :)
> I already wrote three emails explaining that I cannot see the error that
> Slava reports...
> "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too
> dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
> Rcpp-devel mailing list
> Rcpp-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
More information about the Rcpp-devel