Conversation
|
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION RELEASES: This will add The following labels are available |
| auto nparticles = T::mParticles.size(); | ||
| for (Int_t iparticle = 0; iparticle < nparticles; ++iparticle) { | ||
| auto particle = (TParticle)T::mParticles.at(iparticle); | ||
| const auto& particle = T::mParticles.at(iparticle); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good if it works... but I don't see where this should make a difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes a difference only in the log messages. By using the copy the Jpsi will have no daughters before and after the decay because we're not referring to the particle in the stack. By taking a reference instead we see that as expected the Jpsi has no daughters before decay (turned off by a cfg switch), but it does after.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I understand the difference in outcome but I don't understand why it should matter on the technical side. Clearly the copy constructor of TParticle must then be doing something weird.
3 participants
Particle was copied, not referenced, causing logging issue as reported here: https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/O2-6485