Re: [Rd] R_PreserveObject, R_ReleaseObject : reference counting needed ?

From: Whit Armstrong <armstrong.whit_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:26:29 -0500

Romain,

Is the use of UNPROTECT_PTR discouraged? I wonder why you haven't considered using it instead.

I have a similar project that uses a ref counting scheme and handles the deletion of the shared object with UNPROTECT_PTR. This method has been working fine, but if there are reasons I should not be using it, I would certainly like to know.

>From memory.c: /* "unprotect_ptr" remove pointer from somewhere in R_PPStack */

The code is very simple, it just walks backwards down the list until it hits your object. Unless you are adding an obscene number of items to the protection stack in a given call, finding your object should be very fast.

My example is here:
http://github.com/armstrtw/rabstraction/blob/master/R.backend.hpp

template<SEXPTYPE RTYPE>
  Rbackend<RTYPE>::~Rbackend() {
    if(release_data_) {

      if(R_object_!=R_NilValue) {
        UNPROTECT_PTR(R_object_);
      }

    }
  }

I still think all these Rcpp projects should come together some day. Dirk and I talked about combining about two years ago, but "real" work got it the way. I'll ping you off list for a follow up.

-Whit

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Romain Francois <romain.francois_at_dbmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/02/2010 06:01 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2010, at 5:07 AM, Romain Francois wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> We are currently making lots of changes to Rcpp (see the open Rcpp
>>> mailing list if interested [1] in the details).
>>>
>>> We are now using [2] R_PreserveObject and R_ReleaseObject to manage
>>> garbage collection instead of the PROTECT/UNPROTECT dance. This seems to
>>> work well, but I was wondering if there was documentation about it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so - the only documentation is the comment in the source.
>
>
> Fair enough. FWIW, some mention of it in the R-ints or R-exts could be
> valuable.
>
>
>>> In particular, if we preserve the same SEXP twice (or more), should we
>>> implement some sort of reference counting ?
>>>
>>
>> Preserve/Release are for managing objects that are supposed to survive
>> past the call and are not tied to any other R object. PROTECT/UNPROTECT are
>> for temporary preservation within a call.
>>
>> Although you're right that Preserve/Release is effectively implemented as
>> a stack at the moment it is not stated explicitly anywhere (this goes all
>> the way back to R 0.64 so chances are that only Ross can comment..).
>> However, for practical purposes it would be potentially dangerous to have it
>> work like a flag because you can simply never know whether the same object
>> was not already registered by some other code.
>>
>>
>>> Reading the source (below, from memory.c) I think not, but some
>>> confirmation would help.
>>>
>>> void R_PreserveObject(SEXP object)
>>> {
>>>    R_PreciousList = CONS(object, R_PreciousList);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static SEXP RecursiveRelease(SEXP object, SEXP list)
>>> {
>>>    if (!isNull(list)) {
>>>        if (object == CAR(list))
>>>            return CDR(list);
>>>        else
>>>            CDR(list) = RecursiveRelease(object, CDR(list));
>>>    }
>>>    return list;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void R_ReleaseObject(SEXP object)
>>> {
>>>    R_PreciousList =  RecursiveRelease(object, R_PreciousList);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd also be interested if there is some ideas on the relative efficiency
>>> of the preserve/release mechanism compared to PROTECT/UNPROTECT.
>>>
>>
>> PROTECT/UNPROTECT is more efficient because all it does is a pointer
>> assignment -- Preserve has to allocate new node and fill it with all parts.
>> On release the extra node is still floating in the GC pool etc.
>>
>> Normally there is not really a question of choice - within a call you want
>> to use PROTET/UNPROTECT and for anything else you simply cannot use it so
>> you have to use Preserve/Release. As a side note Preserve/Release is merely
>> a convenience call, it is often more efficient to simply assign the object
>> to another object you have control of (which is all Preserve really does).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Simon
>
> Thanks for this advice. This will make it easier to do the bookkeeping of
> how many objects we preserve, etc ...
>
> Romain
>
> --
> Romain Francois
> Professional R Enthusiast
> +33(0) 6 28 91 30 30
> http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr
> |- http://tr.im/IW9B : C++ exceptions at the R level
> |- http://tr.im/IlMh : CPP package: exposing C++ objects
> `- http://tr.im/HlX9 : new package : bibtex
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sat 02 Jan 2010 - 21:29:45 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Sat 02 Jan 2010 - 22:00:11 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive