Hi Murray,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 5:09 PM Murray Efford via R-package-devel
wrote:
>
> Thanks to Dirk, Greg and Seb for grappling with this. The comments give me
> confidence to appeal to CRAN to wave this through as it stands - I think Uwe
> has obliged in the past, but I would rather not rely
Thanks to Dirk, Greg and Seb for grappling with this. The comments give me
confidence to appeal to CRAN to wave this through as it stands - I think Uwe
has obliged in the past, but I would rather not rely on that. More complete
reporting of check times would be welcome.
Murray
__
Greg,
On 4 June 2025 at 00:19, Greg Hunt wrote:
| In the original email, there was this:
|
| * checking examples ... [87s] OK
| * checking tests ... [59s] OK
|
| Am I interpreting it wrong or are these numbers the elapsed times for checking
| examples and tests?
If you follow the URL from t
Dirk,
In the original email, there was this:
* checking examples ... [87s] OK
* checking tests ... [59s] OK
Am I interpreting it wrong or are these numbers the elapsed times for
checking examples and tests?
Greg
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 at 00:17, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> On 3 June 202
Greg,
On 3 June 2025 at 23:58, Greg Hunt wrote:
| To clarify the reference to zero cost.
|
| If Murray is being told that total time is thirteen minutes and that the time
| needs to be less than ten, he might try to reduce the cost of tests and
| examples, but they don't in total add up to th
On 3 June 2025 at 15:36, Sebastian Meyer wrote:
| Am 03.06.25 um 13:22 schrieb Greg Hunt:
| > Dirk,
| > Even if he gets the test and example times to zero, his total time in that
| > thirteen minute run is still above ten minutes. In my view the incomplete
| > time reporting (we don't know what
Dirk,
To clarify the reference to zero cost.
If Murray is being told that total time is thirteen minutes and that the
time needs to be less than ten, he might try to reduce the cost of tests
and examples, but they don't in total add up to the required three minutes.
Even if the combined cost of te
Am 03.06.25 um 13:22 schrieb Greg Hunt:
Dirk,
Even if he gets the test and example times to zero, his total time in that
thirteen minute run is still above ten minutes. In my view the incomplete
time reporting (we don't know what makes up the thirteen minutes) is a bug
in the build process.
It
Greg,
On 3 June 2025 at 21:22, Greg Hunt wrote:
| Dirk,
| Even if he gets the test and example times to zero, his total time in that
| thirteen minute run is still above ten minutes. In my view the incomplete
time
| reporting (we don't know what makes up the thirteen minutes) is a bug in the
|
Dirk,
Even if he gets the test and example times to zero, his total time in that
thirteen minute run is still above ten minutes. In my view the incomplete
time reporting (we don't know what makes up the thirteen minutes) is a bug
in the build process.
Greg
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 10:54, Dirk Eddel
On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:07:06 +0200
Nils Lüschow wrote:
> Regarding the "mismatched-new-delete" warning I am also relatively
> sure that this is actually a false positive. Taking a look into the
> stack-trace, the new and delete operators are actually overloaded
> with functions that internally us
On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 1:15 AM SN248 wrote:
> ❯ checking compiled code ...
> > WARNING File ‘sundialr/libs/sundialr.so’:
> > Found ‘abort’, possibly from ‘abort’ (C) Object:
> > ‘../inst/lib/libsundials_core.a’
> > Found ‘puts’, possibly from ‘printf’ (C), ‘puts’ (C) Object:
> > ‘../inst/lib/libsu
12 matches
Mail list logo
