You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #8830 we had to revert optimisation level 1 to use its legacy behaviour of laying out with DenseLayout and routing with StochasticSwap if the circuit was a control-flow circuit, since the new default SabreSwap couldn't handle the control-flow. Once SabreSwap supports control-flow, we should remove this switching logic, and swap back to the preferred router.
SabreLayout should be easier to upgrade to initial support of control-flow (especially since it'll technically already run, it'll just not have good output), if only the Python-space paths are upgraded.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What should we add?
Part of #9417. Depends on:
SabreSwap
#9419SabreLayout
#9421In #8830 we had to revert optimisation level 1 to use its legacy behaviour of laying out with
DenseLayout
and routing withStochasticSwap
if the circuit was a control-flow circuit, since the new defaultSabreSwap
couldn't handle the control-flow. OnceSabreSwap
supports control-flow, we should remove this switching logic, and swap back to the preferred router.SabreLayout
should be easier to upgrade to initial support of control-flow (especially since it'll technically already run, it'll just not have good output), if only the Python-space paths are upgraded.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: