From p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk  Mon May 28 18:31:22 2001
From: p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard BSA)
Date: 28 May 2001 19:31:22 +0200
Subject: [Rd] memory bug in is.na[n]() (PR#952)
In-Reply-To: Thomas Lumley's message of "Mon, 28 May 2001 10:07:37 -0700 (PDT)"
References: <Pine.A41.4.33.0105281006010.24130-100000@homer41.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <x2wv71xtw5.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>

Thomas Lumley <tlumley@u.washington.edu> writes:

> On Mon, 28 May 2001 maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch wrote:
> 
> > I've forgotten to submit this as bug report
> > (and haven't easily seen how to debug).
> >
> > The bug is both for  is.na() and is.nan()  {which makes much sense since
> > 					the C code of the two is very similar!};
> > only one is shown below.
> 
> I think I've found it - I'll do a bit more testing.

(I bet it was a copy+paste from my earlier fix re lists with NULL
elements... D*mn, I thought I checked that it wouldn't happen it the
list itself was NULL) 

> Incidentally, on my machine if you do
> 
> gctorture()
> is.nan(NULL)
> is.nan(NULL)
> is.nan(NULL)
> ...
> 
> it happens precisely on the second invocation.

Yes, with the new memory allocator you're not quite as sure to provoke
errors with gctorture() as with the old one. On the other hand it lets
base-Ex.R run through overnight rather than in two weeks...


-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] memory bug in is.na[n]() (PR#952)
Peter Dalgaard BSA