On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 4:15 PM Robin Dapp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
What do you mean? nstmts is not zero here (it shouldn't be)?
We are supposed to not get into
if (mask_element != index)
noop_p = false;
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Robin
>
