4 ms·

> How can anyone say such a thing about a collaborative project of more than 10 years, fed by many scientific works and projects and many companies in the indus

> How can anyone say such a thing about a collaborative project of more than 10 years, fed by many scientific works and projects and many companies in the industry? Well the statement you quoted might be exaggerating things quite a bit but you're also just handwaving. The base ISA isn't a result of 10 years of industry experts doing their best; it's an academic project and a large proportion of it carried out by students: > Krste Asanović at the University of California, Berkeley, had a research requirement for an open-source computer system, and in 2010, he decided to develop and publish one in a "short, three-month project over the summer" with several of his graduate students. [..] At this stage, students provided initial software, simulations, and CPU designs The ISA specification was released in 2011! In one year! Of course there's been revisions since then, the most substantial being 2.0 in 2014 (I think). But if you look at the changes and skip anything that isn't just renaming / reordering / clarifying things, it always fits on half a page. It's by and large the same ISA, with some nice finetuning. And here's the thing, a lot of people who originally read the spec felt like it is what it looks like, a "textbook isa", very much the kind of thing a group of students might come up with (I wonder why?).. just taken to completion. And what I remember from the spec (I read it long ago) is that cost of implementation was almost always a primary concern (and that high performance inmplementations would have to work harder but shrug itsnobigdealright?): it smelled like a small academic ISA tuned specifically for cheap microcontrollers. Not an ISA designed by industry experts for high performance cores. But the hype party is trying to sell it as a solution for all your computing needs, and almost seem to claim that no tradeoffs have been made against performance? And this is on a submission about performance, which is of course a subject a lot of people find interesting... So I think there's very much reason to be critical of and discuss the ISA. Some critique may come from wrong assumptions, but being critical is not just bashing, and calling (attempts at) technical criticism uninformed & irrelevant and handwaving it away with 10 years of hype isn't helping the discussion. Better contribute that better analysis you refer to. (Unfortunately it seems like mostly everyone is just arguing without posting technical analysis)

avianes 5y ago
> Some critique may come from wrong assumptions, but being critical is not just bashing Focusing criticism only on this architecture, producing criticism without any solid argument, putting aside all the positive aspects, criticism when you clearly lack of expertise, sending similar criticisms in several conversations when already debunked on multiple occasions.. This is really systematic on discussion about RISC-V. That's what I call bashing, I cannot call that legitimate, correct or constructive criticism. > The ISA specification was released in 2011! In one year! [...] But if you look at the changes and skip anything that isn't just renaming / reordering / clarifying things, it always fits on half a page. I encourage anyone to open the original document published in 2011 [1] and compare it with current RISC-V specification documents [2]. There is very little left from the 3 month student work, it mainly remains the philosophy which is probably highly influenced by project supervisors. Moreover, it mainly consists of the basic RISC-V ISA which is indeed designed to be simple and minimalist, whereas the current RISC-V full spec. consists of a multitude of extensions. At this stage your statement and the statement from the email is not just exaggerated, it is pure misinformation. > Not an ISA designed by industry experts for high performance cores Okay, the industry wasn't involved as much as today in the beginning. But RISC-V is really the product of experts in the field of high performance architectures [1] https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-62.pdf https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-... [2] https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/ https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/
- foxfluff 5y ago
  > I encourage anyone to open the original document published in 2011 [1] and compare it with current RISC-V specification documents [2]. And for extra credit, look how much it changed with respect to the thing that's being discussed around this submission. Integer arithmetic and carry or overflows in base ISA. Carry flag, add? Sltu? Oh right, the base ISA hasn't changed so much after all. > Moreover, it mainly consists of the basic RISC-V ISA which is indeed designed to be simple and minimalist, whereas the current RISC-V full spec. consists of a multitude of extensions. Hand waving about 10 years of extensions and shuffling things around does little to address criticism concerning the base ISA. Hilariously so when these extensions fail to address the criticism at all. Still no analysis either. I'm not going to call out misinformation in a post free of information.

avianes 5y ago

> Some critique may come from wrong assumptions, but being critical is not just bashing Focusing criticism only on this architecture, producing criticism without any solid argument, putting aside all the positive aspects, criticism when you clearly lack of expertise, sending similar criticisms in several conversations when already debunked on multiple occasions.. This is really systematic on discussion about RISC-V. That's what I call bashing, I cannot call that legitimate, correct or constructive criticism. > The ISA specification was released in 2011! In one year! [...] But if you look at the changes and skip anything that isn't just renaming / reordering / clarifying things, it always fits on half a page. I encourage anyone to open the original document published in 2011 [1] and compare it with current RISC-V specification documents [2]. There is very little left from the 3 month student work, it mainly remains the philosophy which is probably highly influenced by project supervisors. Moreover, it mainly consists of the basic RISC-V ISA which is indeed designed to be simple and minimalist, whereas the current RISC-V full spec. consists of a multitude of extensions. At this stage your statement and the statement from the email is not just exaggerated, it is pure misinformation. > Not an ISA designed by industry experts for high performance cores Okay, the industry wasn't involved as much as today in the beginning. But RISC-V is really the product of experts in the field of high performance architectures [1] https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-62.pdf https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-... [2] https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/ https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/

foxfluff 5y ago
> I encourage anyone to open the original document published in 2011 [1] and compare it with current RISC-V specification documents [2]. And for extra credit, look how much it changed with respect to the thing that's being discussed around this submission. Integer arithmetic and carry or overflows in base ISA. Carry flag, add? Sltu? Oh right, the base ISA hasn't changed so much after all. > Moreover, it mainly consists of the basic RISC-V ISA which is indeed designed to be simple and minimalist, whereas the current RISC-V full spec. consists of a multitude of extensions. Hand waving about 10 years of extensions and shuffling things around does little to address criticism concerning the base ISA. Hilariously so when these extensions fail to address the criticism at all. Still no analysis either. I'm not going to call out misinformation in a post free of information.