On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Philippe Canal wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> The problem will be correct in the CVS repository as soon as Fons
> comes back (next week).
>
Hi ROOT team,
will there be a fixed 3.10_03 then? I (and probably many others) would
not like to change to the development releases 4.00_XX yet.
Cheers
Gero
> > Hi Rene,
> >
> > I see that between ROOT 3.10-01 and 3.10-02, the following change was
> made
> > to TArrayI::Reset(...):
> >
> > < // @(#)root/cont:$Name: $:$Id: TArrayI.h,v 1.14 2002/10/30 20:39:50
> brun
> > Exp $
> > ---
> > > // @(#)root/cont:$Name: $:$Id: TArrayI.h,v 1.16 2003/11/14 11:17:13
> brun
> > Exp $
> > 44c44
> > < void Copy(TArrayI &array) const {array.Set(fN); for (Int_t
> > i=0;i<fN;i++) array.fArray[i] = fArray[i];}
> > ---
> > > void Copy(TArrayI &array) const {array.Set(fN,fArray);}
> > 48,49c48
> > < void Reset() {memset(fArray, 0, fN*sizeof(Int_t));}
> > < void Reset(Int_t val) {for (Int_t i=0;i<fN;i++) fArray[i] =
> > val;}
> > ---
> > > void Reset(Int_t val=0) {memset(fArray,val,
> > fN*sizeof(Int_t));}
> >
> > For values of val other than 0, I think this actually changes the
> > implementation since memset (IIRC) fills the array >byte-by-byte< with
> > the value "val" (and not array-index by array-index). Was that change
> > intentional? (We were relying on the original implementation in some of
> our
> > code.)
> >
> > thanks,
> > Pete
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2005 - 05:50:07 MET