From seth at userprimary.net  Sat Jan 31 16:56:25 2009
From: seth at userprimary.net (Seth Falcon)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:56:25 -0800
Subject: [Rd] Side-effects of require() vs library() on x86_64 aka amd64
In-Reply-To: <18820.28545.87207.417437@ron.nulle.part>
References: <18817.12266.512527.675087@ron.nulle.part>
	<18819.54749.999186.155947@ron.nulle.part>
	<20090131145913.GI248@ziti.local>
	<18820.28545.87207.417437@ron.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <20090131155625.GK248@ziti.local>

* On 2009-01-31 at 09:34 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | 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?

The R-intro manual has a brief description:

--slave
    Make R run as quietly as possible. This option is intended to
    support programs which use R to compute results for them. It
    implies --quiet and --no-save.

I suspect that for more detail than that, one would have to look at
the sources.  But the above helps explain the behavior you saw; a
"--quite" R will suppress some output and that will make a difference
in terms of memory allocation.

+ seth

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



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