The trace simulator uses a non-optimal decomposition of the `CCNOT` operation

[jond01]

Please describe what you would like the maintenance work to be.

The trace simulator uses the following decomposition for CCNOT (CCNOT == CCX):

1. qsharp-runtime/src/Simulation/Simulators/QCTraceSimulator/Circuits/CCX.qs

   Lines 18 to 23 in e58a90c

   	operation CCX (control1 : Qubit, control2 : Qubit, target : Qubit) : Unit
   	is Adj {
   	PauliZFlip(PauliX, target);
   	CCZ(control1, control2, target);
   	Adjoint PauliZFlip(PauliX, target);
   	}

2. qsharp-runtime/src/Simulation/Simulators/QCTraceSimulator/Circuits/CCZ.qs

   Lines 19 to 38 in e58a90c

   	/// CCZ = exp( -iπ|111⟩⟨111| ) = exp( -iπ((I-Z)/2)⊗((I-Z)/2)⊗((I-Z)/2) )
   	/// = exp(-i π/2³ I⊗I⊗I) ×
   	/// exp( i π/2³ Z⊗I⊗I ) exp( i π/2³ I⊗Z⊗I ) exp( i π/2³ I⊗I⊗Z ) ×
   	/// exp(-i π/2³ Z⊗Z⊗I ) exp(-i π/2³ I⊗Z⊗Z ) exp(-i π/2³ Z⊗I⊗Z ) ×
   	/// exp( i π/2³ Z⊗Z⊗Z )
   	/// Note that CCZ is symmetric with respect to all of its qubit arguments.
   	operation CCZ (a : Qubit, b : Qubit, c : Qubit) : Unit
   	{
   	body (...)
   	{
   	// do not care about global phase because this CCZ implementation has no controlled version
   	// this line and every line below uses 1 T gate
   	InternalRzFrac(1, 3, a);
   	InternalRzFrac(1, 3, b);
   	InternalRzFrac(1, 3, c);
   	ExpFracZZ(-1, 3, a, b);
   	ExpFracZZ(-1, 3, b, c);
   	ExpFracZZ(-1, 3, a, c);
   	ExpFracZZZ(1, 3, a, b, c);
   	}

However, this decomposition is naive and far from ideal.
A better decomposition is provided here:

1. qsharp-runtime/src/Simulation/TargetDefinitions/Decompositions/CCNOTFromCCZ.qs

   Lines 22 to 31 in e58a90c

   	operation CCNOT (control1 : Qubit, control2 : Qubit, target : Qubit) : Unit is Adj + Ctl {
   	body (...) {
   	// [Page 15 of arXiv:1206.0758v3](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.0758v3.pdf#page=15)
   	within {
   	H(target);
   	}
   	apply {
   	CCZ(control1, control2, target);
   	}
   	}

2. qsharp-runtime/src/Simulation/TargetDefinitions/Decompositions/Utils.qs

   Lines 101 to 116 in e58a90c

   	internal operation CCZ (control1 : Qubit, control2 : Qubit, target : Qubit) : Unit is Adj {
   	// [Page 15 of arXiv:1206.0758v3](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.0758v3.pdf#page=15)
   	Adjoint T(control1);
   	Adjoint T(control2);
   	CNOT(target, control1);
   	T(control1);
   	CNOT(control2, target);
   	CNOT(control2, control1);
   	T(target);
   	Adjoint T(control1);
   	CNOT(control2, target);
   	CNOT(target, control1);
   	Adjoint T(target);
   	T(control1);
   	CNOT(control2, control1);
   	}

The above is equivalent to the following circuit:

Indeed, when using the trace simulator with the latter decomposition - the depth is reduced from 15 to 8, and the T-depth is reduced from 5 to 4:

Metric	Plain trace simulator	Trace simulator with a custom decomposition
Depth	15	8
T-depth	5	4

See the complete code here:
https://gist.github.com/jond01/59d6e6732c55d8702479f8c6555e450c

This improvement is remarkable when estimating the resources (depth) required for a large quantum algorithm.
Is there any relevant reason for this inconsistency between the decompositions?