On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 10:25:02PM +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:50:54AM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> > > Charlie, have you tried a recent version of R-patched?
> >
> > Now I have. The computer is my laptop and not connected to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:50:54AM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> > Charlie, have you tried a recent version of R-patched?
>
> Now I have. The computer is my laptop and not connected to the net
> so I can't upload details, but R-1.2.1-patched as of yesterday does
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:50:54AM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> >Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
> >of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
> >pipelines full (and are harmless).
>
> There were both a rea
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:50:54AM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> >Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
> >of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
> >pipelines full (and are harmless).
>
> There were both a rea
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:13:54AM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
> of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
> pipelines full (and are harmless).
linux$ R CMD config CFLAGS
-g -O2
so no. I
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:50:54AM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> >Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
> >of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
> >pipelines full (and are harmless).
>
> There were both a rea
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:50:54AM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> >Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
> >of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
> >pipelines full (and are harmless).
>
> There were both a rea
Yes, optimization sometimes results in writes that are apparently
harmless and go away if optimization is removed.
It could be the bug you found (and glibc-2.3.5 had fixed) but it isn't in
exactly the right place. But then, valgrind on my system does not have a
problem with that one, optimized
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
> of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
> pipelines full (and are harmless).
There were both a read and a write. I can see the read being harmless,
but is the write harm
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
> of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
> pipelines full (and are harmless).
There were both a read and a write. I can see the read being harmless,
but is the write harm
Did you compile R without optimization? Such reads are often the result
of read-aheads produced by the optimizer in an attempt to keep
pipelines full (and are harmless).
On an un-optimized build of R I am unable to reproduce this. (I also was
unable to reproduce it on my optimized build of 2.
I think I am using objects according to the man page.
This seems to be a valid regular expression. But whether
I know what I'm doing or no, it still shouldn't be doing
what valgrind seems to be saying it's doing. (IMHO)
-- start of script --
Script started on Mon 01 Aug 2005 02:09
12 matches
Mail list logo
