Bug#845753: Possible workaround (was: Re: Help: r-cran-treescape does not build on i386, armel and armhf any more)

2016-12-22 Thread Andreas Tille
severity 845753 important thanks

Bug#845753: Possible workaround (was: Re: Help: r-cran-treescape does not build on i386, armel and armhf any more)

2016-12-14 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 14 December 2016 at 15:59, Andreas Tille wrote: | Hi Christian, | | thanks a lot for your extensive analysis about of the stack problem. I | admit I have no idea why this large stack is needed on those | architectures with stable kernel. I also have no idea why everything | went fine with tr

Bug#845753: Possible workaround (was: Re: Help: r-cran-treescape does not build on i386, armel and armhf any more)

2016-12-14 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Christian, thanks a lot for your extensive analysis about of the stack problem. I admit I have no idea why this large stack is needed on those architectures with stable kernel. I also have no idea why everything went fine with treescape version 1.10.17. Since I personally fell totally cluele

Bug#845753: Possible workaround (was: Re: Help: r-cran-treescape does not build on i386, armel and armhf any more)

2016-12-14 Thread Christian Seiler
Hi again, On 12/14/2016 03:00 PM, Christian Seiler wrote: > If I had to guess what was going on in the backtrace, I'd suspect > an infinite recursion in R code, which translates to infinite > recursion of the underlying C code. But I'm really not sure here. Interestingly enough, my initial guess