From edd at debian.org  Sat Jan 31 16:34:25 2009
From: edd at debian.org (Dirk Eddelbuettel)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:34:25 -0600
Subject: [Rd] Side-effects of require() vs library() on x86_64 aka amd64
In-Reply-To: <20090131145913.GI248@ziti.local>
References: <18817.12266.512527.675087@ron.nulle.part>
	<18819.54749.999186.155947@ron.nulle.part>
	<20090131145913.GI248@ziti.local>
Message-ID: <18820.28545.87207.417437@ron.nulle.part>


Hi Seth,

Thanks for the follow-up.

On 31 January 2009 at 06:59, Seth Falcon wrote:
| * On 2009-01-30 at 22:38 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Turns out, as so often, that there was a regular bug lurking which is now
| > fixed in RDieHarder 0.1.1.  But I still would like to understand exactly what
| > is different so that --slave was able to trigger it when --vanilla,
| > --no-save, ... did not.  
| > 
| > [ The library() vs require() issue may have been a red herring. ]
| 
| Without telling us any details about the nature of the bug you found,
| it is difficult to speculate.  If the bug was in your C code and
| memory related, it could simply be that the two different run paths
| resulted in different allocation patterns, one of which triggered the
| bug.

Yes yes and yes :)  It was in C, and it was memory related and it dealt
getting results out of the library to which the package interfaces. 

But short of looking at the source, is there any documentation on what
--slave does differently?

Dirk

-- 
Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.



[Rd] Side-effects of require() vs library() on x86_64 aka amd64
Dirk Eddelbuettel