On Sat 24 May 2008 at 10:27:57 PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote: >On Sat 24 May 2008 at 08:04:03 AM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > >Well we have been digging a little deeper, here is a ktrace >http://pastebin.ca/1028465 >
I didn't see this part of your responce before... >>> However, isn't the purpose of the test to identify if something is >>> wrong? The problem is: there was _no_failure_ when the ulimit was >>> reached! When the stack limit is reached the process adds 1 to >>> the load and does not log or return. >>> >>> An arbitrary amount of stack may be used before a 'recursive >>> infinite loop is invoked' so just raising the ulimit doesn't >>> fix anything other than making the test pass, it just hides the >>> problem. >> >> Your assertion is simply wrong -- the amount is not 'arbitrary'. are you saying, no matter what the context, the R process will always use the exact (or near enough) amount of stack and will always begin counting from 0 to the ulimit? >>> At this point I'm looking for a consensus as to whether the shell, >>> kernel, or R should kill the process when the stack (or another) >>> ulimit is reached. >> >> R (where possible) stops this being reached -- you seem unfamiliar with the >> R manuals. The failure to exit on SIGSEGV seems pretty clear; I am not unfamiliar with the R manuals but I've not read them all either. Is there something in particular I should be looking at regarding this? // George -- George Georgalis, information system scientist <IXOYE>< ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
