Default-initialize SubTurbineCrossings fields

[davidlt]

Add default values for closestIndex (0), nextIndex (0), nextDistance (0.0f).

Should resolve the following compiler errors:

src/RecoTracker/TkDetLayers/src/PixelForwardLayerPhase1.cc: In member function 'virtual void PixelForwardLayerPhase1::groupedCompatibleDetsV(const TrajectoryStateOnSurface&, const Propagator&, const MeasurementEstim
ator&, std::vector<DetGroup>&) const':
src/RecoTracker/TkDetLayers/src/PixelForwardLayerPhase1.cc:232:70: error: 'crossings_inner.PixelForwardLayerPhase1::SubTurbineCrossings::nextIndex' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
  int negStart = min( crossings.closestIndex, crossings.nextIndex) - 1;
                                                                     ^
src/RecoTracker/TkDetLayers/src/PixelForwardLayerPhase1.cc:124:24: note: 'crossings_inner.PixelForwardLayerPhase1::SubTurbineCrossings::nextIndex' was declared here
  SubTurbineCrossings  crossings_inner;
                       ^
src/RecoTracker/TkDetLayers/src/PixelForwardLayerPhase1.cc:232:70: error: 'crossings_inner.PixelForwardLayerPhase1::SubTurbineCrossings::closestIndex' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
  int negStart = min( crossings.closestIndex, crossings.nextIndex) - 1;
                                                                     ^
src/RecoTracker/TkDetLayers/src/PixelForwardLayerPhase1.cc:124:24: note: 'crossings_inner.PixelForwardLayerPhase1::SubTurbineCrossings::closestIndex' was declared here
  SubTurbineCrossings  crossings_inner;
                       ^

Signed-off-by: David Abdurachmanov davidlt@cern.ch

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @davidlt for CMSSW_8_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

RecoTracker/TkDetLayers

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @davidlange6, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @mschrode, @istaslis, @gpetruc, @cerati, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

Following commands in first line of a comment are recognized

• +1|approve[d]|sign[ed]: L1/L2's to approve it
• -1|reject[ed]: L1/L2's to reject it
• assign <category>[,<category>[,...]]: L1/L2's to request signatures from other categories
• unassign <category>[,<category>[,...]]: L1/L2's to remove signatures from other categories
• hold: L1/all L2's/release manager to mark it as on hold
• unhold: L1/user who put this PR on hold
• merge: L1/release managers to merge this request
• [@cmsbuild,] please test: L1/L2 and selected users to start jenkins tests
• [@cmsbuild,] please test with cms-sw/cmsdist#<PR>: L1/L2 and selected users to start jenkins tests using externals from cmsdist

[davidlt]

Tests are scheduled.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: e6c6062
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12975/10565/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12975/10565/summary.html

[slava77]

+1

for #12975 e6c6062

• code changes look OK and should not produce any differences
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences as expected

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1