Skip to content

provide better protection mechanism than R_PreserveObject / R_ReleaseObject? #382

@kevinushey

Description

@kevinushey

The R_PreserveObject / R_ReleaseObject mechanism basically works by placing items in a protected pairlist called R_PreciousList. The problem here is that having a large vector of Rcpp objects can lead to sub-optimal behaviour on destruction of that vector, basically because the order in which a vector's elements are destructed is not specified by the C++ standards. Example:

Suppose we have a large vector of numeric vectors, e.g. std::vector<NumericVector> x of size 1000000. If elements are destructed from start to end, then each destruction involves a deep recursion into the R_PreciousList in order to unprotect that R object. This manifests itself, for example, in tidyverse/dplyr#1396.

It just so happens that, with libc++, vector elements are destructed in reverse order (and so we end up just popping elements off the R_PreciousList as desired); this does not seem to be the case with libstdc++ (and so the performance regression shows up there, with deep recursions).

I'm not sure if Rcpp can be helpful here, but if we can I think it would be prudent to do so.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions