Dear experts,
The size of the savetrk is always 0. So we never actually enter the following loop, which is 44 lines long:
|
for(unsigned int l=0;l<savetrk.size();l++){ |
|
float okchi2=1.0e+6; |
|
vector<Vertex*>::iterator tmpit,okit; |
|
|
|
//first check whether this trk is unused |
|
bool uflg=true; |
|
for(tmpit=vtx.begin();tmpit!=vtx.end();tmpit++){ |
|
if(find((*tmpit)->getTracks().begin(), (*tmpit)->getTracks().end(), savetrk[l]) != (*tmpit)->\ |
|
getTracks().end()){ |
|
uflg=false; |
|
break; |
|
} |
|
} |
|
if(uflg==false) continue; |
|
|
|
//start to save omitted track |
|
for(tmpit=vtx.begin();tmpit!=vtx.end();tmpit++){ |
|
//make track vector |
|
vector<const Track *> tmptrk; |
|
for(unsigned int ll=0;ll<(*tmpit)->getTracks().size();ll++) |
|
tmptrk.push_back((*tmpit)->getTracks()[ll]); |
|
tmptrk.push_back(savetrk[l]); |
|
Vertex *tmpvtx = VertexFitterSimple_V()(tmptrk.begin(), tmptrk.end(), (*tmpit), true); |
|
//check max chi2 |
|
float maxchi2=0.0; //tmpvtx->getChi2Track(savetrk[ll]); //0.0; |
|
for(unsigned int ll=0;ll<tmptrk.size();ll++) |
|
maxchi2=max(maxchi2, (float)tmpvtx->getChi2Track(tmptrk[ll])); |
|
|
|
if(okchi2>maxchi2){ |
|
okchi2=maxchi2; |
|
okit=tmpit; |
|
} |
|
delete tmpvtx; |
|
} |
|
|
|
if(okchi2<cfg.chi2th){ //can add this track! |
|
vector<const Track *> oktrk; |
|
for(unsigned int ll=0;ll<(*okit)->getTracks().size();ll++) |
|
oktrk.push_back((*okit)->getTracks()[ll]); |
|
oktrk.push_back(savetrk[l]); |
|
Vertex *okvtx = VertexFitterSimple_V() (oktrk.begin(), oktrk.end(), (*okit), true); |
|
vtx.erase(okit); |
|
vtx.push_back(okvtx); |
|
} |
|
} |
Is this expected behaviour?
I am not sure what was the purpose of this loop, but at this stage of the vertexing this loop looks redundant.
Wouldn't it better to remove it?
cheers,
Bohdan
Dear experts,
The size of the
savetrkis always 0. So we never actually enter the following loop, which is 44 lines long:LCFIPlus/src/VertexFinderSuehara.cc
Lines 554 to 598 in 8a46298
Is this expected behaviour?
I am not sure what was the purpose of this loop, but at this stage of the vertexing this loop looks redundant.
Wouldn't it better to remove it?
cheers,
Bohdan