Hi Philippe, For now we are just continuing to use 3.10-01, which we have been using for a while. We can wait until next week, so no big hurry. Pete On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0500, Philippe Canal wrote: > Hi Pete, Gero, > > A release of 3.10/02 patched would have to wait until at least next week (when > Rene returns). In the meantime, is it feasible for your to just patch your own > releases? At the very least I will make sure we get a tagged version of CVS > corresponding to a patched version of ROOT 3.10/02 sometimes this week (whenever > I can get a hold of Fons). > > Cheers, > Philippe. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Elmer [mailto:Peter.Elmer@cern.ch] > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 4:18 AM > To: Gero Flucke > Cc: Philippe Canal; roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch > Subject: Re: [ROOT] TArrayI::Reset() implementation change > > > Hi, > > For the record, we (BaBar) are in the same situation: I'd hoped to move > us ahead to 3.10-02 since in particular it eliminates many of the valgrind > warnings, but we aren't ready to go to ROOT4 quite yet. > > Pete > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 11:02:42AM +0200, Gero Flucke wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Elmer E-mail: Peter.Elmer@cern.ch Phone: +41 (22) 767-4644 Address: CERN Division PPE, Bat. 32 2C-14, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2005 - 05:50:07 MET