23 Nov
2023
23 Nov
'23
4:22 p.m.
On Thu Nov 23 11:27:33 2023 +0000, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
More in general it seems that you can avoid pushing a new record each time it matches the last one, be it statically written or not. It's probably not an essential optimization, but it's an easy one. I'd rather have it, but I can live without it, as you two prefer.
Yep, but I would say that storing a value with the same timestamp twice is unexpected and thus, it means that there may be an error. Unless it is dynamic write that comes from copy_propagation_invalidate_from_block() to invalidate the variable.