undefined | Better HN

0 pointsuserbinator11y ago0 comments

I think it may be to avoid any political/legal issues - despite the patents having expired, MIPS still sells ISA licenses. On the other hand, RISC-V basically is most of MIPS (but most RISC ISAs are very similar anyway).

They also avoided the patented instruction issue completely by removing all alignment restrictions from the regular load/store; probably a good idea, with memory bandwidths being the bottleneck now and buses growing wider - the extra hardware is also negligible, basically a barrel shifter and logic to do an extra bus cycle if needed.

0 comments

FullyFunctional11y ago

The specification (http://riscv.org/riscv-spec-v2.0.pdf) clearly states the reasons. It has nothing to do with political/legal issues. There are very good technical reasons for designing a new ISA.

That RISC-V resembles MIPS is a testament to what was good about the MIPS design, however if you look closely you will find the many ways in which RISC-V is different.

Truly, the specification is highly readable and the footnotes enjoyable. Having implemented multiple MIPS cores and so far one RISC-V core, I'm deeply impressed with the care that went into the design.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsuserbinator11y ago0 comments

0 comments

FullyFunctional11y ago

The specification (http://riscv.org/riscv-spec-v2.0.pdf) clearly states the reasons. It has nothing to do with political/legal issues. There are very good technical reasons for designing a new ISA.

That RISC-V resembles MIPS is a testament to what was good about the MIPS design, however if you look closely you will find the many ways in which RISC-V is different.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse