←back to thread

366 points pabs3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Manfred ◴[] No.41365540[source]
> At least in the context of x86 emulation, among all 3 architectures we support, RISC-V is the least expressive one.

RISC was explained to me as a reduced instruction set computer in computer science history classes, but I see a lot of articles and proposed new RISC-V profiles about "we just need a few more instructions to get feature parity".

I understand that RISC-V is just a convenient alternative to other platforms for most people, but does this also mean the RISC dream is dead?

replies(7): >>41365583 #>>41365644 #>>41365687 #>>41365974 #>>41366364 #>>41370373 #>>41370588 #
flanked-evergl ◴[] No.41365583[source]
Is there a RISC dream? I think there is an efficiency "dream", there is a performance "dream", there is a cost "dream" — there are even low-complexity relative to cost, performance and efficiency "dreams" — but a RISC dream? Who cares more about RISC than cost, performance, efficiency and simplicity?
replies(2): >>41365643 #>>41366020 #
impossiblefork ◴[] No.41365643[source]
But we define the RISC dream as a dream that efficiency, performance and low-cost could be achieved by cores with very small instruction sets?
replies(2): >>41365677 #>>41365732 #
flanked-evergl ◴[] No.41365677[source]
If adding more instructions negatively impacts efficiency, performance, cost and complexity, nobody would do it.
replies(2): >>41365691 #>>41366636 #
1. patmorgan23 ◴[] No.41366636[source]
Only if decoder complexity/ efficiency is you bottleneck