From csardi.gabor at gmail.com  Fri Dec  6 16:49:38 2013
From: csardi.gabor at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?B?R+Fib3IgQ3PhcmRp?=)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:49:38 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Matrix memory layout R vs. C
In-Reply-To: <52A1F06D.3080701@stats.ox.ac.uk>
References: <52A1CF46.7070408@googlemail.com> <52A1E17B.8090200@gmail.com>
	<CABtg=KnYfx_VYvGdmximPm7GSSj-eY-vzdcYKpPPtHDcd1ppXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52A1F06D.3080701@stats.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <CABtg=KmrrJJhLXFRvY0YmxgKuAP=SkS95qbrD3nmpes-mowGEw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
<ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 14:42, G?bor Cs?rdi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/12/2013 8:21 AM, Larissa Hauer wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would not assume that a 2D matrix in C doesn't have gaps in it between
>>> the
>>> rows.  Let C treat it as a vector, and write a little macro that does the
>>> indexing.  For example,
>>>
>>> #define INDEX(i,j) (i) + rows*(j)
>>
>>
>> I would make this
>>
>> #define INDEX(i,j) ((i) + rows*(j))
>>
>> just to be on the safe side.
>
>
> And to be safer on a 64-bit platform
>
> #define INDEX(i,j) ((i) + rows*(R_xlen_t)(j))
>
> since rows*j might overflow there.

Indeed. Of course this still does not save you from indexing
out-of-range and integer overflow in the addition.

Gabor

[...]



[Rd] Matrix memory layout R vs. C
=?ISO-8859-1?B?R+Fib3IgQ3PhcmRp?=