On 10 January 2011 at 13:30, Dominick Samperi wrote: | Is the fix that I proposed and that was confirmed by the three of us a dream?
A 'fix'? Where is posting a ten-liner that exhibits a perceived bug a 'fix'? As for the relevance of gctorture, I argued before that our approach of proxy classes aims for protection at the C++ scope level and NOT at the instruction level (which is fine for C) -- and as such, gctorture is not a good tool. R is single-threaded, outside of gctorture we are not likely to get hit by gc while within a single scope, so the test is not valid. Which is why I call the bug 'perceived'. Actual bug tests are in our unit tests. Moreever, I sent your example back, reworked and with a third block in Rcpp, and it did not fail under gctorture. Ignore this as as you will... but I run code with Rcpp every (business) day (on datasets large and small), and it has yet to fail once on a memory issue. So whatever. Also: | My package cxxPack does not compile because YOU "released" RcppClassic, Cute. Your package happened to be broken for months already, i.e. well before we responded to _your_ very public email list terror here and on r-devel by splitting the old deprecated code off. That was triggered by _you_, so now blaming me is cute. Too cute. As for the Date bug reports: yes indeed, those were bugs, seemingly outside of codepaths I used or tested for. And I fixed them within a day or two each of when you reported them. If you had learned to use SVN or a similar tool in the last few decades you could even have found out for yourself. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
