-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 217
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
shielding #789 behind a new #define to effectively disable it now
- Loading branch information
1 parent
b52f690
commit 81c8339
Showing
10 changed files
with
137 additions
and
50 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
81c8339
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can't we just have
Rcpp_eval_impl()
always useRf_eval()
for now, rather than sprinkling the#ifdef
s around the associated usage? I think that would imply just ensuring thatRCPP_USE_PROTECT_UNWIND
is never defined by us?81c8339
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(I think this looks fine but I think we can accomplish the same thing with a bit less code)
81c8339
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, we could. So far I figured @lionel- 's PR was somewhat limited so I could just leave it in place, "protect" it (or us ;-) ) from it and give him a chance to revisit in time.
These
ifdef
will not stay forever. Either we can make this work, or I'll remove them in, say, six month. At least now I know where to find the code as the#ifdef
provide a clear demarcation.81c8339
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What I don't understand is that
Rcpp_eval_impl()
was defined as a simple wrapper toRf_eval()
unlessRCPP_PROTECTED_EVAL
was defined..81c8339
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See the diff. Your PR affected other areas, and things generally turned sour ... on systems other than Linux. I spent two days cleaning this and am not too interested in discussions of the "in theory this should have worked" type because I have ample evidence that "in practice" this didn't. Part of it may be R. We don't quite know.
But now is neither the time to take chance, nor for experimentation. Let's get a working 0,12,15 out the door.