In the following document, http://www.collyer.net/who/geoff/9/9k-riscv.pdf Mr. Collyer shares very clear opinions on RISC-V. I have thought about these, and wanted to know more, for quite a while. It now occurs to me that there may be three different things:
1) The RISC-V definition and extensions, 2) The instruction sets that individual assembly-language programmers choose to use, 3) The instruction sets that board manufacturers decide to include in their products. This opinion paper makes it very clear that in the opinion of at least one person, "proposed and approved extensions beyond IMAFDC, and other additions" should not be used. If one either happens to agree with this, or accepts the conclusion for any other reason, obvious questions are the following: Are any board manufacturers following this advice, and if not.. why? How big would the community of people wanting such a board have to be to motivate the creation of it, and how far short of being that big is that community now? I should add that I previously did a search on this general subject, and found the following: https://github.com/bintukappilgeorge/64-bit-RISC-V-processor-RV64IMAFD-SoC-Design ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tbf390d3a51f65cdf-M2ecad4db5a9f57cda2a506f2 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
