You can choose to develop proprietary extensions, but who’s going to use them?
A great case study is the companies that implemented the pre-release vector standard in their chips.
The final version is different in a few key ways. Despite substantial similarities to the ratified version, very few people are coding SIMD for those chips.
If a proprietary extension does something actually useful to everyone, it’ll either be turned into an open standard or a new open standard will be created to replace it. In either case, it isn’t an issue.
The only place I see proprietary extensions surviving is in the embedded space where they already do this kind of stuff, but even that seems to be the exception with the RISCV chips I’ve seen. Using standard compilers and tooling instead of a crappy custom toolchain (probably built on an old version of Eclipse) is just nicer (And cheaper for chip makers).
Yes, extensions are perfect for embedded. But not just there.
Extensions allow you to address specific customer needs, evolve specific use cases, and experiment. AI is another perfect fit. And the hyperscaler market is another one where the hardware and software may come from the same party and be designed to work together. Compatibility with the standard is great for toolchains and off-the-shelf software but there is no need for a hyperscaler or AI specific extension to be implemented by anybody else. If something more universally useful is discovered by one party, it can be added to a future standard profile.
ARM is British (America’s closest ally) and proprietary. If you’re swapping, just eliminate the risk and cost entirely.
LoongArch is 32-bit instructions only. This means no MCUs due to poor code density. That forces them into RISCV anyway at which point, you might as well pour all your money and dev time into one ISA instead of two. RISCV has way more worldwide investment meaning LoongArch looks like a losing horse in the long term when it comes to software.
Quite the contrary, the fragmented ecosystem is holding RISC-V back.
There are currently 3 variants of LoongArch ISA.
The reduced 32-bit version targets MCUs.
And LoongArch64 ATX/MATX motherboards with UEFI support is readily available.
This makes it far more easier to develop with LoongArch.
What evidence do you have that RISC-V is being held back by fragmentation?
Every upcoming general purpose RISC-V core I'm aware of is targeting RVA23. That's even less fragmentation than x86 has.
Meanwhile, I don't know of ANY third-party chip designs using LoongArch, so asserting no fragmentation seems to be misrepresenting the situation a bit.
RVA23 is the standard target for compilers now. If you support newer stuff, it’ll take a while before software catches up (just like SVE in ARM or AVX in x86).
If you try to make your own extensions, the standard compiler flags won’t be supporting it and it’ll probably be limited to your own software. If it’s actually good, you’ll have to get everyone on board with a shared, open design, then get it added to a future RVA standard.
Compiling the code is not the issue. The hard part is the system integration. Most notably the boot process and peripherals. It's not actually hard to compile code for any given ARM or x86 target. Even much less open ecosystems like IBM mainframes have free and open source compilers (eg GCC). The ISA is just how computation happens. But you have to boot the system, and get data in and out for the system to be actually useful, and pretty much all of that contains vendor specific quirks. Its really only the x86 world where that got so standardized across manufacturers, and that was mostly because people were initially trying to make compatible clones of the IBM PC.
Thanks, that however addresses only a part of the problem. ARM is also suffering from no boot/initialization standard where each manufacturer does it their own way instead of what PC had with BIOS or UEFI, making ARM devices incompatible with each other. I believe the same holds with RISC-V.
There is a RISC-V Server Platform Spec [0] on the way supposed to standardise SBI, UEFI and ACPI for server chips, and it is expected to be ratified next month. (I have not read it myself yet)
Lab corundum is where it's at. Almost as hard as diamond (Mohs 9), but much less prone to cracking than diamond. It's available in tons of colors (most famous are blue and red -- sapphires and rubies). Lab-grown is so much better than natural that the way they identify natural is by looking for imperfections that lab versions don't have.
Oh, and diamonds burn while aluminum oxide does not.
There's no need to go broke when you can buy a superior product for less money.
I definitely think sapphire is the best gemstone for rings given the huge variety of colors and reasonable synthetic rough prices. My only gripe is that green shades that look nice are hard to find in synthetics.
I want them to finish the official TC39 binary AST proposal. Nearly twice as fast to parse and a bit smaller than minified code makes it a pretty much universally useful proposal.
Maybe they've been taking down jets the entire time and you've simply been lied to and the situation on the ground is different than what you believe.
CENTCOM tweeted that no shootdown occurred only for Iran to show the wreckage and one of the ejection seats. CENTCOM said Iran didn't shoot down the F-35, but it apparently crashed in Saudi Arabia and we sent out a Chinook to run search patterns to find it.
CENTCOM claimed a single Kuwait (ghost of Kuwait?) shot down three different F-15s by accident, but those planes were close enough to Iran that they could have been targeted by Iran (which seems more likely than the massive chain of mistakes required for the Kuwaiti shootdown to happen).
CENTCOM also only talks about US planes shot down and excludes Israeli F-15 that have been hit. CENTCOM also doesn't count all the very expensive drones that have been shot down, but their total value is at least a half-billion dollars.
Finally, CENTCOM is straight-up lying about air superiority. They claimed they'd switched to gravity bombs, but people instantly noticed that all the planes going up were using long-range JASSM stand-off missiles so they don't have to actually go very far inside Iran and can keep their planes in a safer section of the country. CENTCOM loaded up a B-52 with JDAMs and took a couple pictures, but all the pictures after that photo-op still show super-expensive JASSM (costing as much as $1.6M each).
If our planes never enter their airspace, there's nothing for them to shoot down. I'd note they've also shot down a couple of JASSM missiles which is interesting itself as the radar cross-section of a JASSM is believed to be pretty close to an F-35.
Iran is currently using bongo trucks with an IRST and a couple missiles that can even loiter in the air if there's no target. Being electro-optically guided means they are passive and the human element makes them a lot less likely to miss due to chaff.
These little trucks can hide ANYWHERE and because they aren't a massive multi-vehicle setup like a Patriot or S-300, they should be able to relocate often and quickly (they might even be able to stay mobile while in operation). This mobility combined, ability to hide as a normal truck, and completely passive sensors make them almost impossible to find and destroy.
When they struck desalination plants in Bahrain would be an easy example. You can say that they are retaliatory strikes, but they are certainly against the Geneva Conventions.
Iran's use of cluster munitions to attack swaths of Israeli cities is also against the Geneva Convention (though I'd again point out that we started hitting civilian targets in Iran first).
Both sides have violated the conventions, but the US and Israel have violated them to a much greater degree (especially Israel and all their attacks on Lebanese civilians not to mention razing Gaza).
reply