3 ms·

>overall far more value in having it be unified. >[...] >If integer checking is really the be all end all and without it RISC-V can not be successful without

>overall far more value in having it be unified. >[...] >If integer checking is really the be all end all and without it RISC-V can not be successful without it, it will be added and it will be pulled into all the profiles. If it is not actually that relevant then it wont. If it is very useful for some verticals and not others, it will be in those profiles and not in others. So which is it? Unified or something else?

panick21_ 5y ago
The goal is that there is a unified core that runs the majority code. The majority of ecosystem and tooling works of a common base. Lots of code can be used in a way to be very universal. Some verticals that will be special like deep embedded will likely be different enough that it will be slightly different, but it still profits from all the work going into the overall ecosystem. RISC-V allows 'the market' to decide between uniformity and specialty in a orthogonal way. My bet is that this will actually lead to a lot of uniformity in most verticals.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Again, I ask: Unified, or something else? Having a "majority" isn't really different from what we have now, and it includes the downside of a more robust monoculture. And to be clear here, I'm not anti RISC-V. I am very highly skeptical, given how frequently we see things like code size critics responded to with 'but it will be faster', which isn't really an answer, The same thing happened here. Hand wavy "the market" and "orthogonal way" doesn't communicate anything meaningful, and or worth some clear downsides at present. Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Not having the definition being controlled by a company, being and open specification and the whole ecosystem and tooling from the ground up being designed around a fully modular instruction set with use-case specific profiles that can evolve independently is very different then what we have now. > Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense. No idea what that means. I don't know if it will be faster, frankly I don't care if its slightly slower, even if I don't really think that will be the case. An open ISA allows for real open chips and finally making real progress in that direction in terms of openness.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      I agree with the latter portion, and that's the part I like about RISC-V the most. Just wish some of the choices were made differently. Open could be open and amazing. We are likely to get open with a bit of hobbling built in early on, and that makes me wonder. This discussion is much improved over the initial, "unified, but..." one we started with.
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        I think overall it is amazing. I think considering everything they had to do and everything they wanted to achieve, I think they made really, really good overall choices. There are some things here and there one can argue, depending on what one considers the main usecase. Overall I think starting with a very small base makes a lot of sense. In fact they actually went to large in some places and that's why they have been working on a profile that is considerably smaller, less registers and floats in int register standards. Given that this was made by a small group of students and one professor I think its remarkable and innovative.
        ddingus 5y ago
        I do not think much of the choice on how to do math and not have flags. We will see over time. My preference is a hybrid. There are ops we know will repeat a lot. Targeting those with efficient, small instructions will be a win over this every time. I expect to see that done. Sing the tool chains all come up as a good thing though. We're heading into interesting times.

panick21_ 5y ago

The goal is that there is a unified core that runs the majority code. The majority of ecosystem and tooling works of a common base. Lots of code can be used in a way to be very universal. Some verticals that will be special like deep embedded will likely be different enough that it will be slightly different, but it still profits from all the work going into the overall ecosystem. RISC-V allows 'the market' to decide between uniformity and specialty in a orthogonal way. My bet is that this will actually lead to a lot of uniformity in most verticals.

ddingus 5y ago
Again, I ask: Unified, or something else? Having a "majority" isn't really different from what we have now, and it includes the downside of a more robust monoculture. And to be clear here, I'm not anti RISC-V. I am very highly skeptical, given how frequently we see things like code size critics responded to with 'but it will be faster', which isn't really an answer, The same thing happened here. Hand wavy "the market" and "orthogonal way" doesn't communicate anything meaningful, and or worth some clear downsides at present. Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Not having the definition being controlled by a company, being and open specification and the whole ecosystem and tooling from the ground up being designed around a fully modular instruction set with use-case specific profiles that can evolve independently is very different then what we have now. > Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense. No idea what that means. I don't know if it will be faster, frankly I don't care if its slightly slower, even if I don't really think that will be the case. An open ISA allows for real open chips and finally making real progress in that direction in terms of openness.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    I agree with the latter portion, and that's the part I like about RISC-V the most. Just wish some of the choices were made differently. Open could be open and amazing. We are likely to get open with a bit of hobbling built in early on, and that makes me wonder. This discussion is much improved over the initial, "unified, but..." one we started with.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      I think overall it is amazing. I think considering everything they had to do and everything they wanted to achieve, I think they made really, really good overall choices. There are some things here and there one can argue, depending on what one considers the main usecase. Overall I think starting with a very small base makes a lot of sense. In fact they actually went to large in some places and that's why they have been working on a profile that is considerably smaller, less registers and floats in int register standards. Given that this was made by a small group of students and one professor I think its remarkable and innovative.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        I do not think much of the choice on how to do math and not have flags. We will see over time. My preference is a hybrid. There are ops we know will repeat a lot. Targeting those with efficient, small instructions will be a win over this every time. I expect to see that done. Sing the tool chains all come up as a good thing though. We're heading into interesting times.