[Rd] Usage of PROTECT_WITH_INDEX in R-exts
kirill.mueller at ivt.baug.ethz.ch
Tue Jun 6 22:14:03 CEST 2017
On 06.06.2017 10:07, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>>>>> Kirill Müller <kirill.mueller at ivt.baug.ethz.ch>
>>>>>> on Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:30:20 +0200 writes:
> > Hi I've noted a minor inconsistency in the documentation:
> > Current R-exts reads
> > s = PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx);
> > but I believe it has to be
> > PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = eval(OS->R_fcall, OS->R_env), &ipx);
> > because PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() returns void.
> Yes indeed, thank you Kirill!
> note that the same is true for its partner function|macro REPROTECT()
> However, as PROTECT() is used a gazillion times and
> PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() is used about 100 x less, and PROTECT()
> *does* return the SEXP,
> I do wonder why PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() and REPROTECT() could not
> behave the same as PROTECT()
> (a view at the source code seems to suggest a change to be trivial).
> I assume usual compiler optimization would not create less
> efficient code in case the idiom PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(s = ...)
> is used, i.e., in case the return value is not used ?
> Maybe this is mainly a matter of taste, but I find the use of
> SEXP s = PROTECT(........);
> quite nice in typical cases where this appears early in a function.
> Also for that reason -- but even more for consistency -- it
> would also be nice if PROTECT_WITH_INDEX() behaved the same.
Thanks, Martin, this sounds reasonable. I've put together a patch for
review , a diff for applying to SVN (via `cat | patch -p1`) would be
. The code compiles on my system.
> > Best regards
> > Kirill
More information about the R-devel