Tejas Belagod <tejas.bela...@arm.com> writes:
> Am I correct to understand that we still need to check for the case when
> there's a repeating non-zero elements in the case of NELTS_PER_PATTERN == 2?
> eg. { 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1,....} which should be encoded as {0, 0, 1, 1} with
> NPATTERNS = 2 ?Yeah, that's right. The current handling for NPATTERNS==2 looked good to me. It was the other two cases that I was worried about. Thanks, Richard
