3 ms·
RV-C is intended to be implemented on high perf systems; it's not some tiny, embedded core only extension like ARMv8-m. And I don't think it's misleading, inst
by monocasa 4y ago
RV-C is intended to be implemented on high perf systems; it's not some tiny, embedded core only extension like ARMv8-m.
And I don't think it's misleading, instruction count isn't the only metric that matters. I$ pressure is very real. So they show both metrics.
- gpderetta 4y agoIt is meant for high performance implementations. But do they exist already?
- monocasa 4y agoThe numbers have been run on simulations of large wide cores, and the benefit of RV-C is pretty clear. Although since the release of the M1, I agree that there's probably a need for a BOOMv4 to publicly explore the problem space. Going into rumor town: my understanding is that all of the companies working on high perf core are implementing RV-C, including those made of ex-Apple employees who worked on their cores. The tiny bit of extra decode complexity more than pays dividends in I$ pressure (which from a design perspective can let you get away with less I$, and therefore lower latency I$).
- gpderetta 4y agoThat's interesting! Is there a short reference on RV-C?