From seth at userprimary.net  Sat Jan 31 15:59:13 2009
From: seth at userprimary.net (Seth Falcon)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:59:13 -0800
Subject: [Rd] Side-effects of require() vs library() on x86_64 aka amd64
In-Reply-To: <18819.54749.999186.155947@ron.nulle.part>
References: <18817.12266.512527.675087@ron.nulle.part>
	<18819.54749.999186.155947@ron.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <20090131145913.GI248@ziti.local>

Hi Dirk,

* 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.

+ seth

-- 
Seth Falcon | http://userprimary.net/user/



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