3 ms·

I don't think they're confused; I think they're worried about a robust RISC-V ecosystem weakening the ability of the US and its allies to influence the availabi

I don't think they're confused; I think they're worried about a robust RISC-V ecosystem weakening the ability of the US and its allies to influence the availability of processor technology by regulating licensing deals with the architecture "owners" like Intel, IBM, and ARM. From that perspective, the fact that open-source implementations are even allowed represents a potential threat (although I assume it's not long before ARMv7 runs out of essential patents, if it hasn't already).

RetroTechie 2y ago
US' grip on advanced cpu tech is weakening anyway. Long-term, RISC-V is bound to take a hefty bite out of x86 & ARM market share no matter what. Highest-performance AI accelerators (like Nvidia's latest), IP for high(est)-performing cores, and machines to manufacture those on the most advanced semiconductor nodes (see: ASML) is where it's at. Given that, fuzzing over ISAs is mostly pointless noise imho.
jolux 2y ago
> I don't think they're confused; I think they're worried about a robust RISC-V ecosystem weakening the ability of the US and its allies to influence the availability of processor technology by regulating licensing deals with the architecture "owners" like Intel, IBM, and ARM. I mean, this seems pretty questionable? There's nothing stopping them from regulating licensing deals with smaller companies.