From i@uc@r86 @ending from gm@il@com  Sat Aug 11 01:38:21 2018
From: i@uc@r86 @ending from gm@il@com (=?UTF-8?B?ScOxYWtpIMOaY2Fy?=)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 01:38:21 +0200
Subject: [Rd] 
 SIGSEGV in R_RunWeakRefFinalizer, object allocated with Rcpp
In-Reply-To: <e190406d-80f6-954d-572c-1141b837be0c@gmail.com>
References: <CALEXWq2E+-k=Oka1YZAzGzYU1bLmcC3ptUUrv8RUMUrpcviK-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a03f65c7-3e0e-7857-0e1e-a809e1051b56@gmail.com>
 <23404.36580.740017.811392@rob.eddelbuettel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808091406240.3237@luke-Latitude-7480>
 <CALEXWq0H8Qdtc18Enr+TTm5DbDSJx3YtaLHaGZxr7V9Okz8q+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <e190406d-80f6-954d-572c-1141b837be0c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALEXWq0iTbun=yRNBOMao_GappHc2KKT1an-WyREy-Z3KoSRGw@mail.gmail.com>

El vie., 10 ago. 2018 a las 14:17, Tomas Kalibera
(<tomas.kalibera at gmail.com>) escribi?:
>
> Hi I?aki,
>
> I think that "still reachable" memory is potentially a problem only if
> you cared about (frequent) package unloading, and if package unloading
> did not have correctness problems in the first place. I would only worry
> about "memory leaks" reported by valgrind.
>
> That your example (unloading a library while there is still an object
> with a finalizer implemented in that library) segfaults on one system
> but not another is not too surprising. Depending on the OS, the dynamic
> linker, the current state of the system, etc - when the GC tries to run
> the finalizer, it may point to inaccessible memory (segfault), but also
> still to the code of the unloaded finalizer (possibly no segfault) or
> something else. There is no way to distinguish between all these cases
> before running the finalizer - neither the OS nor R can do it - we could
> only in principle, with a lot of other problems and platform-dependent
> hacks, detect when the memory is inaccessible, but that may not be worth it.

Ok, I get it. And I agree: it's not worth it. Thanks again.

I?aki

>
> Best
> Tomas
>
>
> On 08/10/2018 12:46 AM, I?aki ?car wrote:
> > Thanks, Tomas, Luke, for the clarifications. Then, I have another question.
> >
> > But first, let me introduce how I ended up here, because obviously I
> > just don't go around dyn.unloading things that I've just compiled. I
> > was testing a package with valgrind. Everything ok, no leaks. Great.
> > But I'm always suspicious (probably unjustifiably) of all the memory
> > that is reported as "still reachable", so I wanted to check whether
> > there was any difference if I detach(unload=TRUE) the package after
> > all the tests.
> >
> > In a nutshell, I ended up discovering that the following code:
> >
> > ```
> > library(simmer)
> > simmer() # allocates a C++ object, as in my initial example
> > detach("package:simmer", unload=TRUE)
> > ```
> >
> > segfaults on Windows, but not on Linux (then I built the example in my
> > initial email to confirm it wasn't simmer's fault). So given that,
> > from your explanation, I should expect a segfault here, the question
> > is: what on Earth does (or does not) R on Linux do to avoid
> > segfaulting compared to Windows? :) And a corolary would be, can't R
> > on Windows do the same?
> >
> > Regards,
> > I?aki
> >
> > El jue., 9 ago. 2018 a las 21:13, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> escribi?:
> >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9 August 2018 at 20:37, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
> >>> | So to answer your original question, this could probably be handled in
> >>> | Rcpp,
> >>>
> >>> Hm. Why do you say that / what did you have in mind?
> >> We say it because it is true. Rcpp registers C finalizers and running
> >> them after unloading will segfault. For now it would be better for Rcpp
> >> (and everyone else) to explicitly discourage unloading as it is
> >> unreliable on many levels.
> >>
> >> What Rcpp could do to avoid segfaulting is to keep a weak list of all
> >> objects to which it attaches C finalizers and arrange for those to be
> >> cleaned up in an R_unload_<dllname> routine. Not clear it is worth the
> >> trouble. At the R level we could provide more support for this since
> >> we already have a weak list of objects with finalizers, but again not
> >> clear it is worth the trouble.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> luke
> >>
> >>> Recall that we do not alter SEXPs or introduce additional additional
> >>> reference counters -- because we do not think that altering the basic R API
> >>> for such calls would be a wise strategy.  So we do more or less what is done
> >>> in C for R, with some additional hand-holding which circumvents a number of
> >>> common errors.
> >>>
> >>> | but in either case I would not use dyn.unload() in the first
> >>> | place. This problem may be just one of many.
> >>>
> >>> I think I'd second that. I never had much unloading packages or dynamic
> >>> libraries and tend to "just say no". Both short-lived processes (ie via 'r')
> >>> as well as long sessions (ie R via ESS, running for weeks) work for my
> >>> workflows.
> >>>
> >>> Dirk
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Luke Tierney
> >> Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
> >> University of Iowa                  Phone:             319-335-3386
> >> Department of Statistics and        Fax:               319-335-3017
> >>      Actuarial Science
> >> 241 Schaeffer Hall                  email:   luke-tierney at uiowa.edu
> >> Iowa City, IA 52242                 WWW:  http://www.stat.uiowa.edu



[Rd] SIGSEGV in R_RunWeakRefFinalizer, object allocated with Rcpp
=?UTF-8?B?ScOxYWtpIMOaY2Fy?=