ProgramMemory: avoid duplicated lookups / removed at()
#7768
+66
−67
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
"impossible" lookups with no exprid will be dealt with in a different PR. |
firewave
force-pushed
the
pm-at
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1cb862f to
7a04197
Compare
firewave
commented
Aug 25, 2025
Comment on lines
-1730
to
+1735
| if (value.tokvalue->exprId() > 0 && !pm->hasValue(value.tokvalue->exprId())) | ||
| if (value.tokvalue->exprId() == 0) | ||
| continue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should have been separate before since an at() call with no exprid would have failed.
|
It appears to not have much impact on performance but it gets rid of the |
|
Should be done but I am seeing slightly less executions when profiling this, which should not be happening since it does not functionally change. So still needs looking into. |
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
all
at()calls were proceeded byhasValue()so we can just directly fetch the value instead.