On 24/04/17 12:39, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 23/04/2017 7:53 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 24/04/17 11:36, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 23/04/2017 6:18 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 23/04/17 23:05, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Looks like
extern void F77_NAME(mnnd)(double *, double *, int *, double *,
double *
On 23/04/2017 7:53 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 24/04/17 11:36, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 23/04/2017 6:18 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 23/04/17 23:05, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Looks like
extern void F77_NAME(mnnd)(double *, double *, int *, double *,
double *);
to me.
One more (I hope it's the las
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 24 April 2017 at 11:47, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> And per Duncan's last (and his earlier emails) maybe you need to call from R
> into C (for finer control over the interface) and only then call your Fortran
> worker function. To hide i
On 24/04/17 11:36, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 23/04/2017 6:18 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 23/04/17 23:05, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Looks like
extern void F77_NAME(mnnd)(double *, double *, int *, double *,
double *);
to me.
One more (I hope it's the last!) question:
One of my subroutines has an
On 24 April 2017 at 11:47, Rolf Turner wrote:
|
| On 24/04/17 11:22, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| > I would be surpised if init.c was Fortran. Anyway...
|
| It isn't of course. But it is the device used for "registering
| routines" of all both flavours (i.e. both C and Fortran).
And per Dunc
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> On 23/04/2017 6:18 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
[SNIP]
> This is important: *there is no way to pass a Fortran "LOGICAL" from R to
> Fortran*.
>
> The issue is that different Fortran compilers store LOGICAL in different
> ways. Some are equivale
On 24/04/17 11:22, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
I would be surpised if init.c was Fortran. Anyway...
It isn't of course. But it is the device used for "registering
routines" of all both flavours (i.e. both C and Fortran).
cheers,
Rolf
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
Univ
On 23/04/2017 6:18 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 23/04/17 23:05, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Looks like
extern void F77_NAME(mnnd)(double *, double *, int *, double *,
double *);
to me.
One more (I hope it's the last!) question:
One of my subroutines has an argument of type *logical*. There is no
On 24 April 2017 at 10:45, Rolf Turner wrote:
| On 24/04/17 10:31, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 24 April 2017 at 10:18, Rolf Turner wrote:
| > | One more (I hope it's the last!) question:
| > |
| > | One of my subroutines has an argument of type *logical*. There is no
| > | logical type in C.
On 24/04/17 10:31, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 24 April 2017 at 10:18, Rolf Turner wrote:
| One more (I hope it's the last!) question:
|
| One of my subroutines has an argument of type *logical*. There is no
| logical type in C. So, since I am perforce using C-speak, I cannot
| change "void
On 24 April 2017 at 10:18, Rolf Turner wrote:
| One more (I hope it's the last!) question:
|
| One of my subroutines has an argument of type *logical*. There is no
| logical type in C. So, since I am perforce using C-speak, I cannot
| change "void *" to "void logical".
|
| I have a (very vag
On 23/04/17 23:05, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Looks like
extern void F77_NAME(mnnd)(double *, double *, int *, double *,
double *);
to me.
One more (I hope it's the last!) question:
One of my subroutines has an argument of type *logical*. There is no
logical type in C. So, since I am perforc
On 23/04/2017 6:38 AM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 23/04/17 21:57, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 22/04/2017 5:25 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
(1) I found that having an R function with the same name as that of a
routine (Fortran subroutine in this case) that it called, causes all
sorts of chaos. I had a fu
On 23/04/17 21:57, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 22/04/2017 5:25 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
(1) I found that having an R function with the same name as that of a
routine (Fortran subroutine in this case) that it called, causes all
sorts of chaos. I had a function "binsrt" that called a Fortran
subro
On 22/04/2017 5:25 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
I have, like many others it would appear, been struggling with
the new-ish convention of requiring --- or quasi-requiring --- that
"routines" be "registered" and the warning generated by R CMD check to
the effect:
Found no calls to: 'R_registerRoutines
Thanks for trying, but your example blows me away completely.
cheers,
Rolf
On 23/04/17 14:47, Avraham Adler wrote:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
The foregoing "official" way would seem to apply to functions called by
".Call" (which I never use; it is way over my head)
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> The foregoing "official" way would seem to apply to functions called by
> ".Call" (which I never use; it is way over my head). What about functions
> called by ".Fortran()" or ".C()"?
>
>> | (b) For the sake of completeness, how *does* o
On 23/04/17 09:44, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 23 April 2017 at 09:25, Rolf Turner wrote:
| However I found a posting by Ege Rubak on this topic which sent me by a
| slightly roundabout route to a posting by Dirk Eddelbuttel
There is a transcribed Umlaut in there: Eddelbuettel (ie 'ue' no
On 23 April 2017 at 09:25, Rolf Turner wrote:
| I have, like many others it would appear, been struggling with
| the new-ish convention of requiring --- or quasi-requiring --- that
| "routines" be "registered" and the warning generated by R CMD check to
| the effect:
|
| > Found no calls to: 'R
I have, like many others it would appear, been struggling with
the new-ish convention of requiring --- or quasi-requiring --- that
"routines" be "registered" and the warning generated by R CMD check to
the effect:
Found no calls to: 'R_registerRoutines', 'R_useDynamicSymbols'
It is good pra
20 matches
Mail list logo
