2 ms·
Larger code size is not for free either. Besides, this translation layer is not a major source of complexity anymore. Even instruction decoding in x86 is not a
by vardump 9y ago
Larger code size is not for free either.
Besides, this translation layer is not a major source of complexity anymore. Even instruction decoding in x86 is not a big deal anymore.
- microcolonel 9y agoI think you somewhat underestimate the complexity introduced by decoding x86, and working with the resulting μ-ops.
- snvzz 9y ago>Larger code size is not for free either. What larger code size? RISC-V is no worse than x86-64. Refer to: https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tue1130celio-fusion-finalV2.pdf https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tue1130celio-fu...
- vardump 9y agoThat's a nice property for sure. Typically RISC ISAs have had larger code size. Being a new ISA, RISC-V does have an advantage of being able to learn from past mistakes.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- snvzz 9y agoSimple vs Complex, but same code size. An easy win for simple. It's very nice, indeed. Unlike the established RISC ISAs, this one's created with decades of RISC (and CISC) experience to draw from. I'd of course still have my doubts whether this is going to draw any traction, if it wasn't for the list of RISC-V Foundation members.