[Rd] Re: (PR#7826) ... segfault during build of 2.1.0 on RH9; print.POSIXct ...

2005-04-30 Thread Jskud
lpful response (specifically, the unclass suggestion) associated with the representative bug number. /Jskud >-- Begin Included Message -- > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: r-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Rd] segfault during build of 2.1.0 on R

Re: (PR#7826) [Rd] segfault during build of 2.1.0 on RH9; print.POSIXct

2005-04-30 Thread Jskud
gotten about it. Building R (actually, running the tests) requires a larger stack. So it was a user problem, not a RH9 problem. The problem is in fact in c.POSIXct which is not checking its arguments. Sincerely, /Jskud __ R-devel@stat.math.eth

[Rd] segfault during build of 2.1.0 on RH9; print.POSIXct implicated (PR#7826)

2005-04-30 Thread Jskud
time.R, we find print.POSIXct <- function(x, ...) { print(format(x, usetz=TRUE, ...), ...) invisible(x) } print.POSIXlt <- function(x, ...) { print(format(x, usetz=TRUE), ...) invisible(x) } Note the suspicious definition of print.POSI

[Rd] segfault during build of 2.1.0 on RH9; print.POSIXct implicated (PR#7827)

2005-04-30 Thread Jskud
time.R, we find print.POSIXct <- function(x, ...) { print(format(x, usetz=TRUE, ...), ...) invisible(x) } print.POSIXlt <- function(x, ...) { print(format(x, usetz=TRUE), ...) invisible(x) } Note the suspicious definition of print.POSI