<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edd@debian.org">edd@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On 10 January 2011 at 13:30, Dominick Samperi wrote:<br>
| Is the fix that I proposed and that was confirmed by the three of us a dream?<br>
<br>
</div>A 'fix'? Where is posting a ten-liner that exhibits a perceived bug a 'fix'?<br>
<br>
As for the relevance of gctorture, I argued before that our approach of proxy<br>
classes aims for protection at the C++ scope level and NOT at the instruction<br>
level (which is fine for C) -- and as such, gctorture is not a good tool. R<br>
is single-threaded, outside of gctorture we are not likely to get hit by gc<br>
while within a single scope, so the test is not valid. Which is why I call<br>
the bug 'perceived'. Actual bug tests are in our unit tests.<br>
<br>
Moreever, I sent your example back, reworked and with a third block in Rcpp,<br>
and it did not fail under gctorture. Ignore this as as you will... but I run<br>
code with Rcpp every (business) day (on datasets large and small), and it has<br>
yet to fail once on a memory issue. So whatever.<br></blockquote><div><br>The symptoms of memory corruption are machine/compiler/OS-dependent and<br>
the idea that "it has yet to fail once on a memory issue" should elicit howls of <br>
laughter from experienced software developers. It is as if the following<br>code is considered safe because "it has yet to fail once", or because of<br>the "advanced C++ design patterns that we use":<br>
<br>double *x = new double[100];<br>x[0] = 1.0;<br>delete [] x;<br>double y = x[0];<br>
...<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
| My package cxxPack does not compile because YOU "released" RcppClassic,<br>
<br>
</div>Cute. Your package happened to be broken for months already, i.e. well before<br>
we responded to _your_ very public email list terror here and on r-devel by<br>
splitting the old deprecated code off. That was triggered by _you_, so now<br>
blaming me is cute. Too cute.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>What I requested is that you not use my name in any context because of<br>
our bad history. I did not ask that you create an R package that creates a lasting<br>
bond between us! Nobody is using this package, and there is no reason for<br>it to exist, except for spiteful and scandalous purposes.<br><br>For those who may be tempted to release "free software," this is an<br>
illustration of the greatest hazard. Imagine seeing your prior work<br>"released as deprecated" in a public CRAN repository.<br><br>Dominick<br><br></div></div>