Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Determine & Document how loops will be handled #110

Open
NoahGWood opened this issue Nov 22, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Determine & Document how loops will be handled #110

NoahGWood opened this issue Nov 22, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed question Further information is requested

Comments

@NoahGWood
Copy link
Contributor

Due to the pulsed nature of LOQC, it is only possible to create a loop type program by the use of optical delays (physical optical loops) which can be upwards of several meters in order to allow enough time for the switching circuitry to activate, this greatly decreases circuit coherency (this is one of the biggest flaws in LOQC and other optical quantum paradigms).

As of now it looks like we have a few options:

  1. Abandon loops altogether
  2. Evaluate loops prior to synthesis (no looping controls, a loop will repeat a given block n times). - Much faster/safer
  3. Evaluate loops in 'run-time' mode where loops (and delay and control circuitry) is built-in. - Much slower/dangerous
  4. Hybrid between 2 & 3 - Evaluate as many loops as possible and only implement run-time loops when necessary - Probably the best option

It is proposed that we pursue the fourth option for loops, but the community is welcome to comment on which they would prefer.

It is also proposed that if we do go with the Hybrid model this feature be documented and additional documentation be written when a 'best practices' guide is created to dissuade the use of loops for this architecture whenever possible.

@NoahGWood NoahGWood added good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed question Further information is requested labels Nov 22, 2021
@pranith7867
Copy link

@NoahGWood can i work on this issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants