On 2/19/11 9:20 AM, "Douglas Bates" wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:50 PM, wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug, did you ever get a test case working for this?
>
>I didn't try further. I was hoping that you would pick up the sources
>for the package and experiment with it. :-)
Yes, a reasonable thing to h
Just a quick note to say that ...
On 22 February 2011 at 10:53, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| got farther, so now I'm getting correct output from it. BTW, I changed
| the prereq on Rcpp from 0.9.0 to 0.8.6 since that's the latest public
| release.
... this ain't so. Are you running a
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:53 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On 2/19/11 9:20 AM, "Douglas Bates" wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:50 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Doug, did you ever get a test case working for this?
>>
>>I didn't try further. I was hoping that you would pick up the sources
>>for the package and
On 2/22/11 11:13 AM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
>
>Just a quick note to say that ...
>
>On 22 February 2011 at 10:53, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
>| got farther, so now I'm getting correct output from it. BTW, I changed
>| the prereq on Rcpp from 0.9.0 to 0.8.6 since that's the late
On 22 February 2011 at 11:26, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| On 2/22/11 11:13 AM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
| >Just a quick note to say that ...
| >
| >On 22 February 2011 at 10:53, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| >| got farther, so now I'm getting correct output from it. BTW
On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2011 at 11:26, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
> | On 2/22/11 11:13 AM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
> | >Just a quick note to say that ...
> | >
> | >On 22 February 2011 at 10:53, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wro
On 22 February 2011 at 12:45, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| >
| > On 22 February 2011 at 11:26, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| > | On 2/22/11 11:13 AM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
| > | >Just a quick note to say that ...
| > | >
|
Just as an incidental remark about Rcpp on FreeBSD, since that
Unix-alike OS is 'non standard' in some way ;-)
On 22.02.2011 18:55 (UTC+1), Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 22 February 2011 at 12:45, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
|>
|> On 22 Febr
On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>
>On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
>>
>>Simon: Are there are any reasons Rcpp is frozen on a version that is
>>five
>> months old and five releases behind?
>>
>
>Yes, it's not passing checks - it's that simple:
>http://www.R
On 22 February 2011 at 13:49, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
|
|
| >
| >On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| >>
| >>Simon: Are there are any reasons Rcpp is frozen on a version that is
| >>five
| >> months old and f
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2011 at 13:49, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
> | On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
> |
> |
> | >
> | >On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | >
> | >>
> | >>Simon: Are there are an
On 22 February 2011 at 15:32, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| >
| > On 22 February 2011 at 13:49, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| > | On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | >
| > | >On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:32 P
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2011 at 15:32, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> |
> | On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > On 22 February 2011 at 13:49, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
> | > | On 2/22/11 11:45 AM, "Simon U
On 22 February 2011 at 16:53, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| i386 = 32-bit (not that is matters) and the CRAN specs are listed in "CRAN
Package Check Flavors" saying OS X 10.5.8, gcc 4.2.1 (5577 to be precise).
| I can only speculate why they are not affected, and I'd say it's because they
use 10.6 and
Hi,
Out of curiosity I also ran a R CMD check on the CRAN version of Rcpp,
and it failed on my machine (10.5):
Running the tests in ‘tests/doRUnit.R’ failed.
Error in eval.with.vis(expr, envir, enclos) :
unit test problems: 0 failures, 1 errors
Error in func() : object 'stdVector' not fo
On 2/22/11 4:14 PM, "baptiste auguie"
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Out of curiosity I also ran a R CMD check on the CRAN version of Rcpp,
>and it failed on my machine (10.5):
Looks like the big difference might be 10.5 vs. 10.6. My compiler is the
same as Simon's build machine.
--
Ken Williams
Senior
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2011 at 16:53, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> | i386 = 32-bit (not that is matters) and the CRAN specs are listed in "CRAN
> Package Check Flavors" saying OS X 10.5.8, gcc 4.2.1 (5577 to be precise).
> | I can only speculate why th
On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
>>
>>Anyway---I will point our OS X user to source installs.
>>
>
>Well, I don't think that helps in any way - the test will still fail for
>all 10.5 users. Why don't you just fix the test? I
On 22 February 2011 at 17:25, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| >
| > On 22 February 2011 at 16:53, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| > | i386 = 32-bit (not that is matters) and the CRAN specs are listed in
"CRAN Package Check Flavors" saying OS X 10.5.8, gcc
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM,
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway---I will point our OS X user to source installs.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I don't think that helps in any way - the test will s
On 2/22/11 4:32 PM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
>
>What boolean test for 'am I on OS X 10.5' can you suggest?
You could use system("uname -r"), which on my system gives 10.6.0 (even
though my system is 10.6.6) and on a 10.5.x system seems to give
9.something.
Or if you don't mind a command th
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2011 at 17:25, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> | On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > On 22 February 2011 at 16:53, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> | > | i386 = 32-bit (not that is matters) and the CRAN spe
On 2/22/11 4:33 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>
>On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM,
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>>>
Anyway---I will point our OS X user to source installs.
>>>
On 22 February 2011 at 16:46, ken.willi...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
| On 2/22/11 4:32 PM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
| >
| >What boolean test for 'am I on OS X 10.5' can you suggest?
|
| You could use system("uname -r"), which on my system gives 10.6.0 (even
| though my system is 10.6.6) and on
On 2/22/11 4:54 PM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
>What is in Sys.info(), particularly fields 1 and 2:
>
>R> Sys.info()[1:2]
>sysname release
>"Linux" "2.6.32-25-generic"
That's probably the right way to do it, as Simon suggested too in the
meantime.
> Sys.i
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:51 PM,
wrote:
>
>
> On 2/22/11 4:33 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM,
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>>>
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
>
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:51 PM,
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/22/11 4:33 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM,
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 2/22/11 4:25 PM, "Simon Urbanek" wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:46 PM,
wrote:
> On 2/22/11 4:32 PM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" wrote:
>>
>> What boolean test for 'am I on OS X 10.5' can you suggest?
>
> You could use system("uname -r"), which on my system gives 10.6.0 (even
> though my system is 10.6.6)
uname -r (and Sys.info()['release']
Ken,
Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.package.R, apply the diff below:
-- ie add the new .badOSX function (maybe I'll rename it 'oldOSX')
-- change the test to add a && ! .badOSX()
so that the test that barfs under g++ 4.2.1 is not getting
On 23 February 2011 00:28, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> +if( Rcpp:::capabilities()[["Rcpp modules"]] && ! .basOSX() ) {
You probably meant,
+if( Rcpp:::capabilities()[["Rcpp modules"]] && ! .badOSX() ) {
(check in progress...)
baptiste
___
Rcpp-devel
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
> inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.package.R, apply the diff below:
>
> -- ie add the new .badOSX function (maybe I'll rename it 'oldOSX')
>
You have a typo in the call (.basOSX v
R CMD check now successfully completes on my machine with
.badOSX <- !( Sys.info()['sysname'] == "Darwin" &&
isTRUE(as.integer(gsub("\\..*","",Sys.info()['release'])) < 10L) )
if( Rcpp:::capabilities()[["Rcpp modules"]] && .badOSX ) {
Cheers,
baptiste
On 23 February 2011 00:56, Simon Urbane
Oops, just realised the silliness of my having renamed .badOSX a good
one. Oh well, never mind that, I guess it's a matter of opinion ;)
baptiste
On 23 February 2011 01:08, baptiste auguie
wrote:
> R CMD check now successfully completes on my machine with
>
> .badOSX <- !( Sys.info()['sysname']
On 22 February 2011 at 18:56, Simon Urbanek wrote:
|
| On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| >
| > Ken,
| >
| > Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
| > inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.package.R, apply the diff below:
| >
| > -- ie add the new .badOSX function (m
On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2011 at 18:56, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> |
> | On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > Ken,
> | >
> | > Could you test the 0.9.1 tarball? Then in
> | > inst/unitTests/runit.Module.client.pack
On 22 February 2011 at 19:42, Simon Urbanek wrote:
| > Based on the extensive discussion here it appears that
| >
| > 10.5.0 fails as evidenced by your setup and confirmation by other
| >
| > 10.6.0 passes
| >
| > so I want a test that screams if I 10.5 or lower. I don't care about major
| >
36 matches
Mail list logo
