What you say is wrong in many ways. You are talking about forking the project even though the spec is not yet finished and the project is open source and open

What you say is wrong in many ways. You are talking about forking the project even though the spec is not yet finished and the project is open source and open to participation. Instead of forking, just let the RISC-V team know what the problems are. > Pretty comprehensive lists of small but costly design booboos have already been published. But published by whom? Nowadays it's a great game for all the people who think they're hardware gods to say that RISC-V has big problems. However, most of the time this is due to a lack of understanding or knowledge of the field. For example, the article from the man who calls himself an ARM former employee. But he was neither a core designer nor a core architect, he was in charge of the verification of the core. To verify a core you don't need to understand all the internal workings and why it's designed this way, you are not a core architect. And in fact there is a lot of incomprehension in the criticism he makes. So in order for your criticism to be valid, you must make it clear which error list you are talking about. Otherwise we just can't answer your argument. > You don't get it without swallowing the whole, huge B extension, which itself has not even been finalized. How is the fact that the extension is not finished a valid criticism? In addition, extension B is currently divided into several sub-extensions Z. Including Zbb which contains the rotation, bitcnt, and some logical operation. So RISC-V already addresses the problem you are mentioning. > Even multiplication is missing from the base set, unavailable without a lot of other stuff. The fact that multiplication is not in the base instruction set is a feature, not a issue. And the fact that multiplication comes with division is indeed questionable, but a RISC-V M core can be designed without implementation of division and implement the division in software. The RISC-V spec is designed to allow trap on non-implemented instructions. And we can tell the compiler not to use the division instruction with the flag "-mno-div" on gcc. I think that RISC-V potentially has some small issues. But they are not that serious. And these are none of your criticisms.