Clang fixes related to Boost Serialization

[davidlt]

The following fixes a few errors reported by Clang and seen by Boost Serialization script.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @davidlt for CMSSW_7_3_X.

Clang fixes related to Boost Serialization

It involves the following packages:

CalibFormats/SiPixelObjects
CondFormats/RPCObjects

@apfeiffer1, @diguida, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @rcastello, @ggovi can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
@nclopezo, @ktf you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[apfeiffer1]

Could you please make this a "const pos::PixelConfigKey &key" to avoid accidental modification of something which was previously copied ? Even if "key" is actually not used in the method. :)
[also in the corresponding .cc file, of course :) ]

[davidlt]

I thought something similar. But when again this would be hiding overloaded function, I think. If that should be done on a base class are lot more classes would need to be modified, but that would fix quite a number of Clang errors/warnings. There are a lot more files having exact same issue, mis-matching signature and then hiding overloaded method.

[apfeiffer1]

+1

In CalibFormats/SiPixelObjects/interface/PixelCalibConfiguration.h:

@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ namespace pos{

 virtual void writeASCII(std::string dir="") const;
 void    writeXML(        pos::PixelConfigKey key, int version, std::string path) const {;}

• virtual void writeXMLHeader( pos::PixelConfigKey key,
• virtual void writeXMLHeader( pos::PixelConfigKey &key,

I thought something similar. But when again this would be hiding
overloaded function, I think. If that should be done on a base class are
lot more classes would need to be modified, but that would fix quite a
number of Clang errors/warnings. There are a lot more files having exact
same issue, mis-matching signature and then hiding overloaded method.

ah, sorry, did not check for that. agreed then - until we have the time to
attack the base-class and all it's usages. :(

Thanks,
cheers, andreas

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 83f701e
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5692/169/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5692/169/summary.html

[davidlt]

@apfeiffer1 I think, your +1 is not counted it as it's in "inline" comments.

[apfeiffer1]

+1
ah, sorry, overlooked that, here it is again "top level"

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:41 PM, davidlt notifications@github.com wrote:

@apfeiffer1 https://github.com/apfeiffer1 I think, your +1 is not
counted it as it's in "inline" comments.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5692 (comment).

Thanks,
cheers, andreas

[diguida]

+1
@davidlt @apfeiffer1 overlooked today :-(

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_3_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). @nclopezo, @ktf can you please take care of it?