undefined | Better HN

0 pointspanick21_4y ago0 comments

Not having the definition being controlled by a company, being and open specification and the whole ecosystem and tooling from the ground up being designed around a fully modular instruction set with use-case specific profiles that can evolve independently is very different then what we have now.

> Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.

No idea what that means.

I don't know if it will be faster, frankly I don't care if its slightly slower, even if I don't really think that will be the case. An open ISA allows for real open chips and finally making real progress in that direction in terms of openness.

0 comments

ddingus4y ago

I agree with the latter portion, and that's the part I like about RISC-V the most.

Just wish some of the choices were made differently. Open could be open and amazing. We are likely to get open with a bit of hobbling built in early on, and that makes me wonder.

This discussion is much improved over the initial, "unified, but..." one we started with.

panick21_OP4y ago

I think overall it is amazing. I think considering everything they had to do and everything they wanted to achieve, I think they made really, really good overall choices.

There are some things here and there one can argue, depending on what one considers the main usecase. Overall I think starting with a very small base makes a lot of sense.

In fact they actually went to large in some places and that's why they have been working on a profile that is considerably smaller, less registers and floats in int register standards.

Given that this was made by a small group of students and one professor I think its remarkable and innovative.

ddingus4y ago

I do not think much of the choice on how to do math and not have flags.

We will see over time.

My preference is a hybrid. There are ops we know will repeat a lot. Targeting those with efficient, small instructions will be a win over this every time.

I expect to see that done.

Sing the tool chains all come up as a good thing though. We're heading into interesting times.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointspanick21_4y ago0 comments

> Finally, "the goal" is really "a goal or vision" as expressed by proponents. It's not really one in the objective sense.

No idea what that means.

0 comments

ddingus4y ago

I agree with the latter portion, and that's the part I like about RISC-V the most.

Just wish some of the choices were made differently. Open could be open and amazing. We are likely to get open with a bit of hobbling built in early on, and that makes me wonder.

This discussion is much improved over the initial, "unified, but..." one we started with.

panick21_OP4y ago

I think overall it is amazing. I think considering everything they had to do and everything they wanted to achieve, I think they made really, really good overall choices.

There are some things here and there one can argue, depending on what one considers the main usecase. Overall I think starting with a very small base makes a lot of sense.

In fact they actually went to large in some places and that's why they have been working on a profile that is considerably smaller, less registers and floats in int register standards.

Given that this was made by a small group of students and one professor I think its remarkable and innovative.

ddingus4y ago

I do not think much of the choice on how to do math and not have flags.

We will see over time.

My preference is a hybrid. There are ops we know will repeat a lot. Targeting those with efficient, small instructions will be a win over this every time.

I expect to see that done.

Sing the tool chains all come up as a good thing though. We're heading into interesting times.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse