2008/7/16 Jeffrey Horner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Laurent Gautier wrote on 07/16/2008 08:02 AM:
>>
>> The only way to overcome the problem I can find is to tweak the
>> R_CStackLimit with:
>>
>> R_CStackLimit = (uintptr_t) -1;
>>
>> The question I am having now is: what are the implications of doing
Laurent Gautier wrote on 07/16/2008 08:02 AM:
The only way to overcome the problem I can find is to tweak the
R_CStackLimit with:
R_CStackLimit = (uintptr_t) -1;
The question I am having now is: what are the implications of doing
so, that is what are the potential problems ?
The problem is a
Laurent,
On Jul 16, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Laurent Gautier wrote:
The only way to overcome the problem I can find is to tweak the
R_CStackLimit with:
R_CStackLimit = (uintptr_t) -1;
The question I am having now is: what are the implications of doing
so, that is what are the potential problems ?
The only way to overcome the problem I can find is to tweak the
R_CStackLimit with:
R_CStackLimit = (uintptr_t) -1;
The question I am having now is: what are the implications of doing
so, that is what are the potential problems ?
The R-extensions manual says:
" Stack-checking can be disabled by
Dear list,
I am having an embedded R, dying with
*** stack smashing detected *** in one specific case.
My code is such as I evaluate R expression with C code like
res = R_tryEval(expr, env, &error);
and in case of error, get the error message (usually sucessfully) with
code like below:
SEXP ge
