4 ms·
Only if you're hoping to have people use them as application cores, running the same binaries off the internet or a CD for various different users. But there a
by Symmetry 3y ago
Only if you're hoping to have people use them as application cores, running the same binaries off the internet or a CD for various different users. But there are lots and lots of roles that aren't like that from managing hard drivers to SoC's power consumption to Google's TPU AI engines where you're compiling to target a specific hardware configuration. And in that case having lots of standard extensions to choose from, each with their own compiler support, is really valuable to only pay for the hardware features you need for your own application.
- bee_rider 3y agoIs there a requirement, when a RISC-V extension is proposed, to also provide a software implementation? Then somebody could just run the code and link the software version instead. At least for stuff like vector extensions and tensor units, which could easily be emulated in software, this would seem to be a desirable trait. And I mean, it is hard to believe that most of this stuff isn’t proof-of-concept tested using software implementations first. In particular, it could be nice for people who want to develop on RISC-V, when really good desktop chips come out, to be able to actually compile their whole project and run it before sending it off to the exotic hardware.