[Rd] R/C++/memory leaks
ernest.turro at ic.ac.uk
Tue Feb 27 17:51:57 CET 2007
On 26 Feb 2007, at 22:34, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 16:08 +0000, Ernest Turro wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments Ross. A couple more comments/queries below:
>> On 26 Feb 2007, at 06:43, Ross Boylan wrote:
>>> [details snipped]
>>> The use of the R api can be confined to a wrapper function. But
>>> I can
>>> think of no reason that a change to the alternate approach I
>>> would solve the apparent leaking you describe.
>> I'm not sure I see how a wrapper function using the R API would
>> suffice. Example:
> It doesn't sound as if it would suffice. I was responding to your
> original remark that
>> Since this is a standalone C++ program too, I'd rather use the R API
>> as little as possible... But I will look at your solution if I find
>> it is really necessary.. Thanks
> I thought that was expressing a concern about using the alternate
> approach I outlined because it would use the R API. If you need to
> that API for other reasons, you're still stuck with it :)
>> During heavy computation in the C++ function I need to allow
>> interrupts from R. This means that R_CheckUserInterrupt needs to be
>> called during the computation. Therefore, use of the R API can't be
>> confined to just the wrapper function.
>> In fact, I'm worried that some of the libraries I'm using are failing
>> to release memory after interrupt and that that is the problem. I
>> can't see what I could do about that... E.g.
>> #include <valarray>
>> valarray<double> foo; // I don't know 100% that the foo object hasn't
>> allocated some memory. if the program is interrupted it wouldn't be
> That's certainly possible, but you seem to be overlooking the
> possibility that all the code is releasing memory appropriately,
> but the
> process's memory footprint isn't going down correspondingly. In my
> experience that's fairly typical behavior.
OK, but does this still explain why the footprint keeps increasing
indefinitely when i do run, interrupt, run, interrupt, run,
> In that case, depending on your point of view, you either don't have a
> problem or you have a hard problem. If you really want the memory
> released back to the system, it's a hard problem. If you don't
> care, as
> long as you have no leaks, all's well.
>> I find it's very unfortunate that R_CheckUserInterrupt doesn't return
>> a value. If it did (e.g. if it returned true if an interrupt has
>> occurred), I could just branch off somewhere, clean up properly and
>> return to R.
>> Any ideas on how this could be achieved?
> I can't tell from the info page what function gets called in R if
> is an interrupt, but it sounds as you could do the following hack:
> The R interrupt handler gets a function that calls a C function of
> devising. The C function sets a flag meaning "interrupt requested".
> Then in your main code, you periodically call R_CheckUserInterrupt.
> When it returns you check the flag; if it's set, you cleanup and exit.
If this is feasible, it's by far the best solution.
/* This is the point where GUI systems need to do enough event
processing to determine whether there is a user interrupt event
pending. Need to be careful not to do too much event
processing though: if event handlers written in R are allowed
to run at this point then we end up with concurrent R
evaluations and that can cause problems until we have proper
concurrency support. LT */
#if ( defined(HAVE_AQUA) || defined(Win32) )
#endif /* Win32 */
Leaving aside the HAVE_AQUA and Win32 cases, I would like to write a
and then in my C++ code:
// clean up
R_CheckStack() is declared in R_ext/Utils.h but the variable
R_interrupts_pending isn't, so how could I access it? In other words,
how can I extend error.c .....
More information about the R-devel