3 ms·
Comparisons of code compiled for x86 or RISC-V show that (on average), the RISC-V code is significantly smaller. Any code size increases are made up for elsewh
by hajile 3y ago
Comparisons of code compiled for x86 or RISC-V show that (on average), the RISC-V code is significantly smaller.
Any code size increases are made up for elsewhere and they STILL get smaller code too.
- snvzz 3y agoAnd, amusingly, the instruction count is also very competitive, especially inside loops. Furthermore, it achieves all of that with a much simpler ISA that matches x86 and arm in features, while having an order of magnitude less instructions to implement and verify.
- userbinator 3y agoCompiler output is not a good way to show off the best of an ISA (which is more an indictment of how bad compilers actually are at optimising for code density). Look at the demoscene. x86 can be an order of magnitude denser than lame compiler output. RISC-V wasn't around when this paper was written, but it's close enough to MIPS to disprove the claim that "RISC-V code is significantly smaller": https://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_density.pdf https://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_den...
- snvzz 3y ago>Averages over large bodies of code do not matter >Compiler output does not matter >1987 paper >RISC-V encoding "close enough to MIPS" >disprove the claim that "RISC-V code is significantly smaller" F for effort.
- userbinator 3y ago1987 paper Did you even look at the link? Neither shilling nor trolling is welcome here. Is there a relationship you haven't disclosed with RISC-V?
- snvzz 3y ago>Did you even look at the link? Yes, I did. >RISC-V encoding "close enough to MIPS" ... while pointing at MIPS-X, 1987. Deranged. >Is there a relationship you haven't disclosed with RISC-V? Are you projecting? I have noticed a pattern in your appearances whenever a discussion about RISC-V pops up.