G'day Brian,
I am splitting my reply to your e-mail into two since there are two
separate spinoffs.
> "BDR" == Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BDR> Check your versions of MASS. The Windows one appears to be
BDR> an outdated version, and does different things.
Thanks, y
G'day Brian,
> "BDR" == Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BDR> As for the problem, yes it probably is a bug in L-BFGS-B.
BDR> Fancy debugging the code?
I was afraid that somebody would ask this. ;-)
I looked a bit at the code and it seems to be non-trivial. Moreover,
it
Full_Name: Göran Broström
Version: R-2.1.1, 2.2.0
OS: Debian unstable
Submission from: (NULL) (213.65.9.59)
Some BLAS routines call xerbla for error messages, which results in a message
like
"LAPACK routine DGER gave error code -9".
Suggested solution: In
void F77_NAME(xerbla)(char *srname, in
Berwin A Turlach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is, that the code produced by f2c is decrementing pointers
> to simulate 1-based vectors and the C FAQ is pretty unambigious about
> the fact that this provokes undefined behaviour, see
> http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q6.17.html
> It cannot be .Call: your .Call passed no parameters so there was nothing
> to be uninitialized. I did ask you why you were doing that.
This .Call without parameters is just for a test. I am constructing an
interface to this C/Fortran optimization package, and because this
segmentation fault pr
We've never encountered this lying mirror problem. Perhaps you (or
another user of the unreliable mirror) could contribute suitable fixes.
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> G'day Brian,
>
> I am splitting my reply to your e-mail into two since there are two
> separate spinoffs.
>
>
Hi all,
I noted that the books below are not included on the R web site
Documentation section under "Books". I thought that I would provide
these and have created some bib entries consistent with the style used
on the site. The abstract sections were copied from the publisher sites.
I hope that t
