> Well, what you want to catch now isn't single-lane anymore. But I guess
> since
> we now check the permute before this we can rely on check for n_perms == 0
> to catch the "no actual permutation required" case?
I'm seeing n_perms == 1 for {0, 1, 2, 3} as well as for {1, 0, 2, 3}.
We initialize
nvectors_per_build = 1;
which makes us increase n_perms once.
Looks like we need a special case here then?
There is this in the repeating_p branch:
/* It's possible to obtain zero nstmts during analyze_only, so make
it at least one to ensure the later computation for n_perms
proceed. */
but that doesn't apply here.
--
Regards
Robin
