3. is the loss of the dynamic meaning "VL=0" nop effect important?
4. why would "sv.op all-scalar" be inside a loop in the first place?
+Summary so far:
+
+* failfirst needs to be an illegal exception if all-scalar
+* non-zeroing predication on all-scalar with VL>1 requires
+ all relevant bits to be set, this changes to the **first**
+ bit for auto-VL=1
+
## answers to 2, RM Modes
**Normal Mode:**
Answer:
- No, scalar-mode requires RA.isvec=0 RT.isvec=0, but VSPLAT is RA.isvec=0 RT.isvec=1.
+ No, scalar-mode requires RA.isvec=0 RT.isvec=0, but
+ VSPLAT is RA.isvec=0 RT.isvec=1.
VL>1 at the moment, with a scalar source and scalar dest, will
not undergo any changes to the EA compared to if VL=1.
EA = ireg[RA] + ireg[RB]*j # register-strided
```
-Vector destination is again "VLSPLAT" mode, but if a Scalar
+Vector destination is again "VSPLAT" mode, but if a Scalar
destination was set with VL>1, then just as with LD-immediate
it is the entire predicate mask which must be zero to stop
the scalar element from being loaded, and the same effect may
be achieved with VL=1 by ORing all predicate mask bits down to
a single bit as a new predicate.
+**CR ops**
+
+TODO
+
+**Branch-Conditional**
+
+TODO
+
## answers to 4, loops/uses
-### REMAP
+**REMAP**
A REMAP would redirect operations from the first nonmasked
predicated element to the first **REMAPped** element, and combined
question: does this impact LD/ST which has special overrides
and mode-selection based on RA.isvec?
-### predication
+**predication**
with nonzeroing the application of a predicate mask to an all-scalar
operation effectively tests **ALL** relevant bits 0..VL-1 as nonzero in the
a need for merging (ORing) all bits into a single alternative predicate mask
(single-bit) is the sort of thing we can probably live with.
-### fast traditional packed SIMD
+## fast traditional packed SIMD
A major motivation for changing SVP64 with all isvec=0 to temporarily
override VL to 1 is to allow supporting traditional SIMD that has