There appears to be an undercurrent of this sort underway where the soaring popularity of RISC-V in markets such as China is politically ripe for some incumbent ISAs to turn US government opinion against RISC-V, from a general uptake PoV or from the PoV of introducing laborious procedural delays in the uptake.
Turning the ISA into an ISO standard helps curb such attempts.
Ethernet, although not directly relevant, is a similar example. You can't lobby the US government to outright ban or generally slow the adoption of Ethernet because it's so much of a universal phenomenon by virtue of it being a standard.
But yeah, the ISO standard doesn't hurt.
Dedicated consortiums like CNCF, USB Implementers Forum, Alliance for Open Media, IETF, etc are more qualified at moving a standard forward, than ISO or government bodies.
> Turning the ISA into an ISO standard helps curb such attempts.
Why do you think that would help? I fail to see how that would help.
It also cements the fact that the technology being standardized is simply too fundamental and likely ubiquitous for folks to worry about it being turned into a strategic weapon.
Taking the previously mentioned ethernet example (not a perfect one I should accentuate again): why bother with blocking it's uptake when it is too fundamentally useful and enabling for a whole bunch of other innovation that builds on top.
Is this real? Or FUD?
>> Is this real? Or FUD?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/oct/20/risc-v-dese...
Somebody trying to influence Washington seems to want it shut down.
It weirdly feels too early.
ISO is often the source of feature creep in programming languages or massive bloat (mechanically favoring some vendors) in file formats. Namely, everything from ISO must be looked at in the details to see if it is 'clean'.
Seems like this would take away a lot of power from RISC-V International. But I don't know much about this process.
Random example I found at a glance: NIST recommending use of a specific ISO standard in domains not formally covered by a regulatory body: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.S...
Of course this is a lie. But yes, governments like to claim that.
> “International standards have a special status,” says Phil Wennblom, Chair of ISO/IEC JTC 1. “Even though RISC-V is already globally recognized, once something becomes an ISO/IEC standard, it’s even more widely accepted. Countries around the world place strong emphasis on international standards as the basis for their national standards. It’s a significant tailwind when it comes to market access.”
Without these profiles, we are stuck with memorizing a word soup of RV64GCBV_Zicntr_Zihpm_etc all means
“We’re standards compliant”
Other times, like with the "ISO power plug", the result was ISO/IEC 60906-1 which nobody uses. Swiss plugs (IEC Type J), which this plug is based on, use a slightly different distance for the ground pin, so it is incompatible. Brazil adopted it (IEC Type N) but made changes to pin diameter and current rating.
I just hope it's going to be a "throw it over the fence and standardize" type of a deal, where the actual standardization process will still be outside of ISO (the ISO process is not very good - not my words, just ask the members of the C++ committee) and the text of the standard will be freely licensed and available to everyone (ISO paywalls its standards).
Casual reminder that they ousted one of the founders of MPEG for daring to question the patent mess around H.265 (paraphrasing, a lot, of course)
I'm confused. Isn't RISC-V International itself a trusted international organization? It's hard to see how an organization that standardizes screws and plugs could possibly be qualified to develop ISAs.
They develop a well defined standard, not the technologies mentioned in the standard. So yes, they’re qualified.
you my friend have not delved into the rabbithole that is standardisation organizations.
ISO and IEC goes so far beyond bolts and screws it's frankly dizzying how faar reaching their fingers are in our society.
As for why, the top comment explained it well; There is a movement to block Risk-v adoption in the US for some geopolitical shenanigans. A standardisation with a trusted authority may help.
Compared to ISO, RISC-V International has almost no experience maintaining standards.
Even if you think that’s isn’t valuable, the reality is that there is prestige/trustworthiness associated with an “ISO standard” sticker, similar to how having a “published in prestigious journal J” stickers gives scientific papers prestige/trustworthiness.
Us older nerds will remember how Microsoft corrupted the entire ISO standardization process to ram down the Office Open XML (.docx/.xlsx/etc) unto the world.
The original Office ISO standard was 6000+ pages and basically declared unreproducible outside of Microsoft themselves.
There is an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the kafkaesque byzantine nightmare that was that standardization. [0]
ISO def lacks luster, and maybe even relevance.
[O] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open...
I really want to believe, but I don't think we'll see anything like an M5 chip anytime soon simply because there's so little investment from the bigger players.
There are plenty of multi core designs (that's easy) but they aren't very fast.
In terms of open source XiangShan is the most advanced as far as I know. It's fairly high performance out-of-order.
I don't think there's anything M5-level and probably won't be for a while (it took ARM decades so it's not a failing). I doubt we'll see any serious RISC-V laptops because there probably isn't demand (maybe Chromebooks though?). More likely to see phones and servers because Android is supporting RISC-V, and servers run Linux.
In terms of extensions I think it's pretty much all there. Probably it needs some kind of extension to make x86 emulation fast, like Apple did. The biggest extension I know of that isn't ratified is the P packed SIMD one but I don't know if there's much demand for that outside of DSPs.
That's not gonna beat the M5, but it should be similar or better relative to M1, and a huge performance jump for RISC-V.
Formal model: https://github.com/riscv/sail-riscv
What people with a better clue sometimes wrongly equate ISO with is interoperability.
ISO standards can help somewhat. If you have ISO RISC V, then you can analyze a piece of code and know, is this strictly ISO RISV code, or is it using vendor extensions.
If an architecture is controlled by a vendor, or a consortium, we still know analogous things: like does the program conform to some version of the ISA document from the vendor/consortium.
That vendor has a lot of power to take it in new directions though without getting anyone else to sign off.
I doubt it - the ISO standard will still allow custom extensions.
..it was the same mistake that made ARM6 worse/more-complex than modern ARM7/8/9. =3
RISC-V is still too green, and fragmented-standards always look like a clown car of liabilities to Business people. =3
The calling convention was botched, just like it had been for 10s of different MIPS ones And it was hyperoptimized before there was existing silicon, just like the SysV AMD64 calling convention was fucked up by Suse developers before there was existing silicon
Could you elaborate?
