undefined | Better HN

0 pointsddingus4y ago0 comments

>overall far more value in having it be unified.

>[...]

>If integer checking is really the be all end all and without it RISC-V can not be successful without it, it will be added and it will be pulled into all the profiles. If it is not actually that relevant then it wont. If it is very useful for some verticals and not others, it will be in those profiles and not in others.

So which is it? Unified or something else?

0 comments

panick21_4y ago

The goal is that there is a unified core that runs the majority code. The majority of ecosystem and tooling works of a common base. Lots of code can be used in a way to be very universal.

Some verticals that will be special like deep embedded will likely be different enough that it will be slightly different, but it still profits from all the work going into the overall ecosystem.

RISC-V allows 'the market' to decide between uniformity and specialty in a orthogonal way. My bet is that this will actually lead to a lot of uniformity in most verticals.

ddingusOP4y ago

Again, I ask: Unified, or something else?

Having a "majority" isn't really different from what we have now, and it includes the downside of a more robust monoculture.

And to be clear here, I'm not anti RISC-V. I am very highly skeptical, given how frequently we see things like code size critics responded to with 'but it will be faster', which isn't really an answer,

The same thing happened here. Hand wavy "the market" and "orthogonal way" doesn't communicate anything meaningful, and or worth some clear downsides at present.

Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.

panick21_4y ago

Not having the definition being controlled by a company, being and open specification and the whole ecosystem and tooling from the ground up being designed around a fully modular instruction set with use-case specific profiles that can evolve independently is very different then what we have now.

> Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.

No idea what that means.

I don't know if it will be faster, frankly I don't care if its slightly slower, even if I don't really think that will be the case. An open ISA allows for real open chips and finally making real progress in that direction in terms of openness.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

panick21_4y ago

The goal is that there is a unified core that runs the majority code. The majority of ecosystem and tooling works of a common base. Lots of code can be used in a way to be very universal.

Some verticals that will be special like deep embedded will likely be different enough that it will be slightly different, but it still profits from all the work going into the overall ecosystem.

RISC-V allows 'the market' to decide between uniformity and specialty in a orthogonal way. My bet is that this will actually lead to a lot of uniformity in most verticals.

ddingusOP4y ago

Again, I ask: Unified, or something else?

Having a "majority" isn't really different from what we have now, and it includes the downside of a more robust monoculture.

The same thing happened here. Hand wavy "the market" and "orthogonal way" doesn't communicate anything meaningful, and or worth some clear downsides at present.

Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.

panick21_4y ago

> Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.

No idea what that means.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse