On 07/20/2017 05:02 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
Hello,
There appears to be a break missing in the switch/case for the LISTSXP case.
If this is supposed to fall through, I'd suggest a comment so that others
know its by design.
Signed-off-by: Steve Grubb
An example is
$ R --vanilla -e "pl = pairli
On 07/20/2017 05:31 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
Hello,
This is a patch to fix what appears to be a simple typo. The warning says
"invalid status assuming 0", but then instead sets runLast to 0.
Signed-of-by: Steve Grubb
fixed in 72938 / 39.
This seemed not to have consequence, since exit() repor
> Steve Grubb
> on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:20:33 -0400 writes:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:41:00 PM EDT Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> Thanks for posting this series of patches. Unfortunately, there's a
>> good chance they'll get lost in all the traffic on R-devel. If you
>
> Hello,
> This is a patch to fix what appears to be a simple typo. The warning says
> "invalid status assuming 0", but then instead sets runLast to 0.
> Signed-of-by: Steve Grubb
> Index: src/main/main.c
> ===
> --- src/main/main.
> Martin Morgan
> on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 03:43:48 -0400 writes:
> On 07/20/2017 05:02 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> There appears to be a break missing in the switch/case for the LISTSXP
case.
>> If this is supposed to fall through, I'd suggest a comment so
On 07/20/2017 05:04 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
Hello,
There are times when b points to buf which is a stack variable. This
leads to a bad free. The current test actually guarantees the stack
will try to get freed. Simplest to just drop the variable and directly
test if b should get freed.
Signed-o
Hi all,
Working on some SAS program conversions, I was testing this (3.4.0 Windows, but
also 2.10.1 MacOsX):
gsub("b?","!","abc",perl=T)
which returns
[1] "!a!c!"
that I didn't understand.
Unfortunately, asked for the same thing SAS 9.4 replies : "!a!!c!", and so does
Perl (Strawberry 5.26),
I'm chiming in late since I read the news in digest form, and I won't copy the entire
conversation to date.
The issue raised comes up quite often in Cox models, so often that the Therneau and
Grambsch book has a section on the issue (3.5, p 58). After a few initial iterations the
offending co
Please allow me to add my 3 cents. Stopping an iterative optimization
algorithm at an "appropriate" juncture is very tricky. All one can say is that
the algorithm terminated because it triggered a particular stopping criterion.
A good software will tell you why it stopped - i.e. the stopping
> Steve Grubb
> on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:06:52 -0400 writes:
> Hello,
> This patch fixes a memory leak due to ptd going out of scope
> before its assigned to dd.
Hmm, I'm not an expert here, but I tend to say
that it may not be a memory leak because the corresponding
funct
> Steve Grubb
> on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:28:53 -0400 writes:
> Hello,
> The SMBUF_SIZED_STRING allows fscanf to read upto 511 bytes. The buffer
> at line 1382 is only 128 bytes. The fscanf format specifier ought to be
> resized to prevent a stack overrun.
Yes, you are r
On Friday, July 21, 2017 5:03:09 AM EDT Martin Morgan wrote:
> b gets reallocated when
>
> res = vasprintf(&b, format, ap);
>
> is successful and res >= 0. usedVasprintf is then set to TRUE, and
> free(b) called.
>
> It seems like the code is correct as written?
Yes, I think I see the issu
Hello Martin,
On Friday, July 21, 2017 4:21:21 AM EDT Martin Maechler wrote:
> I have now created an account for you.
Thanks. Is that the preferred method of transferring these patches?
> >> In examples like the one below, if you have R code that shows symptoms,
> >> it would really help in the
Hi Ravi: Well said. In John's Rvmmin package, he has codes for explaining
the cause
of the termination. The codes returned were fine. The problem was that
the model I was using could have multiple solutions ( regardless of the data
sent in ) so, even though the stopping criteria was reached, it tur
“So, what I learned the hard way was termination due to reasonable stopping
criteria DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL OPTIMAL.”
Yes, I agree, Mark.
Let me add another observation. In the “optimx” package, John Nash and I
implemented a check for optimality conditions – first and second order KKT
c
H Ravi: Yes, IIRC that's EXACTLY what was going on in my case. Based on
the codes from Rvmmin, the objective functon wasn't changing much and I
think norm of the gradient was close to zero so it was difficult for me to
detect the issue. I found it when I
happenered to notice that the objective fun
16 matches
Mail list logo
