2 ms·
> Making C optional and building a new "code size reduction" extension that is more suitable for large application processors (which can reasonably be assumed t
by snvzz 3y ago
> Making C optional and building a new "code size reduction" extension that is more suitable for large application processors (which can reasonably be assumed to use uops) would help so much more.
Andrew at SiFive disagrees vehemently[0].
0. https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/message/391 https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/message/391
- sweetjuly 3y agoAndrew seems to mostly disagree with Qualcomm in general and is rejecting the idea not so much out of technical merit but because he doesn't believe them. Qualcomm is definitely not alone with its dislike of the C extension and trying to wholesale dismiss criticisms of it because they're coming from Qualcomm is not appropriate.
- snvzz 3y agoSiFive made a technical case[0] on keeping C, too. >Qualcomm is definitely not alone It's also worth noting that they tried to appropriate Rivos's opinion, only to be called out[1]. 0. https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/topic/slides_on_retaining_ialign_16/101922590 https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/topic/slides_on_reta... 1. https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/message/396 https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/message/396