3 ms·
So (i) the research on RISC-V that shows it has dense code is bunk, and (ii) the fact that it compiles to a smaller binary is irrelevant, and (iii) it sounds li
by justinpombrio 5y ago
So (i) the research on RISC-V that shows it has dense code is bunk, and (ii) the fact that it compiles to a smaller binary is irrelevant, and (iii) it sounds like you're saying in advance that it might also have smaller code section sizes within the binary but that's irrelevant too.
And yet you're quite confident that RISC-V has poor code density. So you clearly have a source of knowledge that others don't. If it's a blog/article/research, could you share a link? If it's personal experimentation, you should write a blog post, I would totally read that.
- pierrebai 5y agoRe-read what was written. He is saying exactly that the RISCV code size is larger, but to see it you need the right tool used the right way to actually look at the code, not debug info, constant sections, etc.
- snvzz 5y agoI would hope there's something more to his reasoning. There's tables showing values for just the code and RISC-V beating aarch64 and x86-64 with ample margin, in this very discussion.