-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
[cxxmodules] Workaround missing CLHEP modulemap for JetReco. #28943
[cxxmodules] Workaround missing CLHEP modulemap for JetReco. #28943
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28943/13751
|
A new Pull Request was created by @vgvassilev (Vassil Vassilev) for master. It involves the following packages: DataFormats/JetReco @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
In the same manner as in cms-sw#28925 we force the definition of Hep3Vector to be read from the module that contains it rather than parsing it.
4f092ae
to
bcfd273
Compare
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28943/13752
|
please test
(Changes have no effect on mainstream)
On Feb 12, 2020, at 3:17 PM, cmsbuild <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote:
+code-checks
Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28943/13752
* This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#28943?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABGPFQ7XJADPVEBVQFX2L53RCR7PPA5CNFSM4KUFRV62YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELSYG5Q#issuecomment-585466742>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGPFQ6B3RCVFQ5IGFABGD3RCR7PPANCNFSM4KUFRV6Q>.
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
+1 |
Comparison job queued. |
+1 |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
#if defined __has_feature | ||
#if __has_feature(modules) | ||
// Workaround the missing CLHEP.modulemap: CLHEP/Vector/ThreeVector.h:41:7: error: redefinition of 'Hep3Vector' | ||
#include "DataFormats/JetReco/interface/PFClusterJetCollection.h" |
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.
similar to #28925 , I was expecting that DataFormats/JetReco/interface/PFClusterJetCollection.h (already mentioned below) is paired up with #include "CLHEP/Vector/ThreeVector.h"
Otherwise, what is the benefit of this conditional double-inclusion.
Can this include be here just unconditionally or (still unconditionally) twice, if double-mention is needed?
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.
Good questions.
I think PR #28925 may have been good enough with the single include without the ThreeVector.h
. The include order matters because we do not yet have a module for CLHEP. This means that CLHEP headers will be contained in other modules while some includes (which include CLHEP headers) will parse.
Moving the include up activates the copy of the CLHEP headers from PFClusterJetCollection.h
rather than reparsing and thus avoiding a bug in rootcling (clang).
PS: I would rather keep the duplicate include so that once we have the CLHEP module I will remove the workarounds altogether.
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.
PS: I would rather keep the duplicate include so that once we have the CLHEP module I will remove the workarounds altogether.
did you mean to keep it unconditionally (change this PR), or stay with the conditional duplication?
Please clarify.
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.
I meant to keep it conditional as it is now in the PR.
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. @davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
In the same manner as in #28925 we force the definition of Hep3Vector to be read from the module that contains it rather than parsing it.
Part of #15248
cc: @davidlange6, @smuzaffar, @oshadura.