Le 21 août 2014 à 11:47, Gregor Kastner <gregor.kast...@wu.ac.at> a écrit :
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:34:23 +0200 > Romain Francois <rom...@r-enthusiasts.com> wrote: > > GK> Yep, sorry for the misuse of language. And I do understand going back to > GK> GetRNGstate() and PutRNGstate() is a bit old school; but I can definitely > GK> confirm that it seems to be safer than resorting do the > GK> constructor/destuctor magic. >> >> Compiler/Destructor is not magic. It is determinism. >> >> That's like feature #1 of C++. > > agreed: s/magic/automagic/g > >> And BTW it is definitely safer than any manual handling. > > I cannot say that in the current case, as relying on the destructor does seem > to create problems (in rare cases, making it even worse!) if objects which > are to be returned are instantiated after the RNGScope object. Conditional on > the fact the I understood JJ correctly, that is. Then it's a bug in how constructor or destructor is implemented in this class, probably with the counter. Or something invalidates the very assumptions of C++ here. Perhaps raw R api is called and the destructor is not called because of some long jump or something. Without a repex anyway, it is hard to diagnose what's happening. You're probably onto somthing, but going directly to the "destructor are not safe, I'll just use C function calls" is a dangerous route, soon you'll start using SEXP as you won't trust ctors/dtors of Rcpp objects do the right thing. > Manual handling works perfectly. > > Best, > /g _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
