Hi David, In addition to running under valgrind as Dirk suggests below, you should also run under UBSAN and ASAN.
You can do all 3 (and more) using Winston Cheng's docker images: https://github.com/wch/r-debug/ That should help you narrow down the problematic code. Best, Josh On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 2:33 PM Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Hi David, > > On 21 April 2023 at 19:17, D Z wrote: > | Hi all, > | I wanted to publish my RITCH package (https://github.com/DavZim/RITCH) to > CRAN, which has Rcpp code. > > That would be great! > > | It has, in it’s CICD Pipeline, Tests for Macos, Windows, and Ubuntu (devel, > release,, and oldrel-1), which all succeed on Github Actions. > | When I submitted the package to CRAN, I was notified, that I got the > following error on Debian (the tests on Windows throw no such bug, neither do > the Github Actions tests): > | > | > | *** caught segfault *** > | > | address 0x55939b7ca000, cause 'memory not mapped' > | > | Segmentation fault > | > | The full Report is currently available here: > https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/RITCH_0.1.14_20230420_223157/Debian/00check.log > (note the error happens in the test_filter_itch.R unit tests). > | > | I looked for the error online but couldn’t find anything useful, and as I > am not able to reproduce the segfault locally, cannot debug it. > | Do you have any ideas or hunches what might cause this and how to resolve > it? > > "Absence of error" on one platform does proove correctness on all, the hint > from the segfault should be taken seriously. I just updated my older > checkout of your repo, built a current tarball and simply invoked > > R CMD check --use-valgrind RITCH_0.1.14.tar.gz > > which you could do on CI too (I can help as needed, I would also pull the CI > runners forward from Ubuntu 20.04 to 22.04). When we do the above, the > examples output file RITCH-Ex.Rout ends in > > ==2269271== LEAK SUMMARY: > ==2269271== definitely lost: 1,363,969 bytes in 5,473 blocks > ==2269271== indirectly lost: 177,235 bytes in 1,281 blocks > ==2269271== possibly lost: 101,924,267 bytes in 148 blocks > ==2269271== still reachable: 89,572,890 bytes in 17,950 blocks > ==2269271== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==2269271== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not > shown. > ==2269271== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all > ==2269271== > ==2269271== ERROR SUMMARY: 30 errors from 30 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0) > > and the tests end in > > ==2273761== LEAK SUMMARY: > ==2273761== definitely lost: 5,223,981 bytes in 141,151 blocks > ==2273761== indirectly lost: 2,241,700 bytes in 2,767 blocks > ==2273761== possibly lost: 1,201,493,644 bytes in 270 blocks > ==2273761== still reachable: 133,909,136 bytes in 19,110 blocks > ==2273761== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==2273761== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not > shown. > ==2273761== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all > ==2273761== > ==2273761== ERROR SUMMARY: 43 errors from 39 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0) > > That probably warrants a few more close looks. > > Hth, Dirk > > -- > dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel -- Joshua Ulrich | about.me/joshuaulrich FOSS Trading | www.fosstrading.com ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
