4 ms·

I don't really understand your comparison with linux distros. Of course extensions will be fragmented, each chip will only embed a faction of the ISA according

I don't really understand your comparison with linux distros. Of course extensions will be fragmented, each chip will only embed a faction of the ISA according to its range of application. But Linux distro are not made to be "modular". Can you elaborate on your thoughts?

pjmlp 6y ago
Same will happen regarding OEMs doing their own stuff (ISA extensions) that won't ever get upstream. So there will be applications or compilers only available from vendor X.
- avianes 6y ago
  Yes, only standard extensions will be supported by all compilers. Why is this a problem? If a company needs to design its own extension for its specific application, RISC-V allows it. And it will never get upstream, because it is only relevant for this specific application. And if this application is needed by many vendors, then it means that a standard extension must be designed.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Think Android, but RISC-V ISA instead.
    - afiori 6y ago
      Android is not fragmented, it is easy to write applications that run well on all android versions. The problem RISC-V faces is that one or more companies start to grow a significant market with non-compliant chips, basically the browser war scenario.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Said the one that never had to deal with background activities or firmware issues across the eco-system.
        afiori 6y ago
        yep, that is me, I thought that the main issues were around deprecated features in newer API versions, I guess I was wrong.
      - avianes 6y ago
        > The problem RISC-V faces is that one or more companies start to grow a significant market with non-compliant chips, basically the browser war scenario. The CPU market today is even more closed to competition than web browsers. RISC-V does not "face this problem", this problem already existed before RISC-V. But RISC-V could make this market more competitive. If there is a royalty free standard on top of which all modern CPUs are built (the RISC-V ISA), then a newcomer can easily use it and take advantage of the tools which go with it. But companies remain free to diverge from this standard by adding their own non-standard extensions.

pjmlp 6y ago

Same will happen regarding OEMs doing their own stuff (ISA extensions) that won't ever get upstream. So there will be applications or compilers only available from vendor X.

avianes 6y ago
Yes, only standard extensions will be supported by all compilers. Why is this a problem? If a company needs to design its own extension for its specific application, RISC-V allows it. And it will never get upstream, because it is only relevant for this specific application. And if this application is needed by many vendors, then it means that a standard extension must be designed.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Think Android, but RISC-V ISA instead.
  - afiori 6y ago
    Android is not fragmented, it is easy to write applications that run well on all android versions. The problem RISC-V faces is that one or more companies start to grow a significant market with non-compliant chips, basically the browser war scenario.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Said the one that never had to deal with background activities or firmware issues across the eco-system.
      - afiori 6y ago
        yep, that is me, I thought that the main issues were around deprecated features in newer API versions, I guess I was wrong.
    - avianes 6y ago
      > The problem RISC-V faces is that one or more companies start to grow a significant market with non-compliant chips, basically the browser war scenario. The CPU market today is even more closed to competition than web browsers. RISC-V does not "face this problem", this problem already existed before RISC-V. But RISC-V could make this market more competitive. If there is a royalty free standard on top of which all modern CPUs are built (the RISC-V ISA), then a newcomer can easily use it and take advantage of the tools which go with it. But companies remain free to diverge from this standard by adding their own non-standard extensions.