Remove duplicate dictionary in DataFormats/TauReco #1506
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
davidlt
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2013
…FormatsTauReco Remove duplicate dictionary in DataFormats/TauReco
|
A new Pull Request was created by @wmtan for CMSSW_7_0_ROOT6_X. Remove duplicate dictionary in DataFormats/TauReco It involves the following packages: DataFormats/TauReco @nclopezo, @cmsbuild, @thspeer, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In DataFormats/TauReco, the original classes_def.xml file defining dictionaries was previously split into four smaller files to speed up building. However, two of the files contained a specification of a typedef that resolved to the same class. In ROOT6, this causes a duplicate definition linking error. The fix is to comment out one of the dictionary specifications with an explanation that it is a duplicate. This resolves the link error.