From: cr88192@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/6/2026 11:57 AM, MitchAlsup wrote:   
   >   
   > Terje Mathisen  posted:   
   >   
   >> MitchAlsup wrote:   
   >>> When I looked deeply into the situation, it was easier in HW to do::   
   >>>   
   >>>        for( i = 0; i < 8; i++ )   
   >>>             out[field[i]] = in[i]   
   >>>   
   >>> than::   
   >>>        for( i = 0; i < 8; i++ )   
   >>>             out[i] = in[field[i]]   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That isn't really that surprising:   
   >>   
   >> This way the inputs are available early and in sequential order, while   
   >> the stores can be allowed to have higher latency, right?   
   >>   
   >>> For some reason we called this swizzle not permute !?!   
   >>   
   >> I'm assuming collisions would be disallowed? I.e. you can use it to   
   >> splat a single input into all output slots, but you cannot target   
   >> multiple inputs toward the same destination.   
   >   
   > The later is why the HW logic is significantly easier.   
      
   OK, but this does mean that the usability would be somewhat limited, and   
   couldn't be used to generate the same sorts of repeating pattern fills   
   needed for LZ decompression.   
      
   >>   
   >> Terje   
   >>   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)