New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
L1T fix int overflow #37534
L1T fix int overflow #37534
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37534/29249
|
A new Pull Request was created by @cecilecaillol for master. It involves the following packages:
@emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
Thak you @cecilecaillol for the fix. The error reported in #27554 says:
I am mostly worried by the orbit number 152916275 : is that a reasonable number? Shouldn't it be limited to 262144 = 2**18 orbits in 1 LS? |
DQM/L1TMonitor/src/L1TGMT.cc
Outdated
@@ -202,12 +202,12 @@ void L1TGMT::analyze(const Event& e, const EventSetup& c) { | |||
// if( (Ev - evnum_old_) == 1 && bxnum_old_ > -1 ) { | |||
// assume getting all events in a sequence (usefull only from reco data) | |||
if (bxnum_old_ > -1) { | |||
int dBx = Bx - bxnum_old_ + 3564 * (e.orbitNumber() - obnum_old_); | |||
float dBx = Bx - bxnum_old_ + 3564 * (e.orbitNumber() - obnum_old_); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this also work for the first event, when bxnum_old_
and obnum_old_
are still initialized at 0
?
And, I am not sure but I think that to allow the conversion to float
before assigning the right hand size to dBx
you should have some float
quantity already in the expression, for example 3564
--> 3564.f
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This issue escaped my attention, apologies. Indeed I agree with you that for the expression to be evaluated as float it should contain a float term, before the assignment to a float variable. @cecilecaillol can we test if Andrea's suggestion solves the issue of large orbit numbers?
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f49cd8/23831/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
@emanueleusai you signed this, and therefore I assume that the three objections I wrote above are not deemed relevant by DQM. Just for the record, could you please answer them here anyhow? 1) Is an orbit number 152916275 considered acceptable in this context? If not, shouldn't somebody investigate where such a large number comes from, and try to fix over there (perhaps there is at some point a difference between two unsigned numbers?) 2) Does the fix implemented at L205 work also for the firs event, when 3) In order to allow the conversion to |
@cecilecaillol @emanueleusai any answer/comment about #37534 (comment)? |
@vukasinmilosevic We have this issue with the L1T DQM. It seems odd to have such large numbers in the code. Can you or someone from your team check this code makes sense and address the comments above? |
Hi @dinyar, do you maybe know more about this? |
I can have a look, however this is the DQM for the Run-1 GMT, so I don't have any special insight into that code.. Cheers, |
Pull request #37534 was updated. @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
At least in hardware we only reset the orbit counter at run start. I'm not sure if this is then truncated somewhere in software though . |
please test |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f49cd8/24337/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1
|
PR description:
Addressing issue #27554