Dear All,
Here are some simulations that I have run this morning. Romain's
suggestion to compute xV.size() before the loop and Douglas' idea of
using accumulate appear to work best. However, both are substantially
slower than the r-base function.
I have also included two more versions: (i) o
On 5 January 2011 at 10:55, Cedric Ginestet wrote:
| Dear All,
|
| Here are some simulations that I have run this morning. Romain's suggestion to
| compute xV.size() before the loop and Douglas' idea of using accumulate appear
| to work best. However, both are substantially slower than the r-base
I don't know whether this is through error on my part or because of an
"infelicity" in the Rcpp module code but the lme4a package, which now
uses Rcpp modules extensively, ends up with some difficult-to-trace
memory corruption issues. Yesterday i finally bit the bullet and ran
a test with gctortur
This time with the enclosure :-)
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Douglas Bates wrote:
> I don't know whether this is through error on my part or because of an
> "infelicity" in the Rcpp module code but the lme4a package, which now
> uses Rcpp modules extensively, ends up with some difficult-to-t
On looking more closely at the output, I thought that the problem may
arise in loading the Rcpp package because that is when the function
init_Rcpp_cache() is evaluated. So I ran another test which was
simply
gctorture(TRUE)
library(Rcpp)
run with -d valgrind.
Unfortunately (well, at least from
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Douglas Bates wrote:
> On looking more closely at the output, I thought that the problem may
> arise in loading the Rcpp package because that is when the function
> init_Rcpp_cache() is evaluated. So I ran another test which was
> simply
>
> gctorture(TRUE)
> libra
Attached is a small diff to the RcppDE vignette. I added 2 well-cited
primary lit papers that are helpful (and internet available)
introductions to DE. While I was at it, I ran the doc through the
spell-checker :).
-Christian
Index: RcppDE.Rnw
