Everything you said are facts. In (my) reality, the level of detail you describe in the configuration is based on reading a spec, and not based on a design. Ca

Everything you said are facts. In (my) reality, the level of detail you describe in the configuration is based on reading a spec, and not based on a design. Caveat: this is my experience evaluating RV v. Arm. In other words: no one is picking apart the requirements to that level. In fact, they are just shoveling NEW options into the ISA: look at T-Head, they've added like two dozen esoteric configs. That's a really outsized (and strange) influence IMHO. I think the issues with RV adoption aren't the ISA, it's everything else a semi needs to build a product, specifically debug, validation, integration, and ecosystem : the standards are still in their infancy (go read the debug standard, it is severely underbaked), and I don't think there are any IP vendors selling RV IP, are there? Just those two vectors alone are a big deal. The ecosystem is growing, its just not there yet. And I think Arm is aware that it IS only a matter of time. It is inevitable that the ecosystem vendors for RV will mature over time. I worry it is being polluted by special interest, because RV is too scared to say "no" right now. RV looks leaderless right now. And that is by design. And I think that is bad news.