From rabrantes82 at gmail.com  Sun Aug 28 18:10:06 2005
From: rabrantes82 at gmail.com (Ricardo Luiz Andrade Abrantes)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:10:06 -0400
Subject: [Rd] .Call and Segmentation Fault
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508280718090.3599@gannet.stats>
References: <973080e10508261519699235ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<F81375EB-3C7E-4385-ADC1-8842A449A332@stat.harvard.edu>
	<973080e10508271924266ea3bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0508280718090.3599@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <973080e105082809105c4e6230@mail.gmail.com>

> 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 problem, I decided to modify the interface for a
simple test: call a C function that initialize the set of variables
wich describe the problem to be solved (wich supose to be done in R)
and call the optimization package. But my surprise was that the
program when called from R gives me the same segmentation fault error.
But when I compile the program as a regular linux binary and run it
from shell I don't get any problem. That's why I thought it could be a
problem with .Call.

 
> .Call is very heavily tested in lots of R applications, so the prior 
> probability of innocence must be very high.

Thanks professor, I will  check the C program again.


   Ricardo



> 
> -- 
> Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk
> Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
> University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
> 1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
> Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595
>



[Rd] .Call and Segmentation Fault
Ricardo Luiz Andrade Abrantes