Yeah, so was 8051 and it sucked too :-). I appreciated having this rant all in one place. Ranting against bad architecture is always cathartic and absolutely useless since the people who built and now champion the bad architecture are invested so one's rant simply irritates them. And like the parent comment here, I too find RISC-V "useful" in that it has sufficient tooling to make most everything foundational 'out of the box' rather than me having to build it.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is that RISC-V shows just how ISA agnostic people are, as long as you have cross compilation with the gcc suite and an open source way to program and debug things. Before RISC-V, working on a bespoke ISA and computer architecture was never going to "go" anywhere except perhaps into a paper or conference talk. Now there is evidence of a non-zero chance of it going mainstream. :-)
Of course! Most people in the computing world work way higher up the ladder of abstraction. I suspect a small minority of working software engineers know what an ISA even is.
I did some contract work in web development for a time. It is staggering how few people understand how the javascript they write gets executed on the machine. People don't understand pointers, or virtual machines, or in many cases how JS bundlers work, despite using them daily.
In some ways, this is a sign that our abstraction layers have been a great success! People can program for the virtual javascript machine, without needing to understand how the actual machine works, or how it emulates javascript. Is this the future we wanted? I'm not sure. But it's here.
To the extent that Raspberry Pi shipped a microcontroller that can literally be either RISC-V or ARM (indeed, one of each at the same time I think?)
RISC-V, it seems to me, lives in that cognitive space occupied by things like: open source, open weights, C, HTML, ethernet, Greggs sausage rolls and VHS.
Far from optimal, obviously flawed, and could change human society for the better. Ubiquity is inevitable.
There is indeed plenty of value to be had from a standardized (if poorly) PlayStation-1-era instruction set you can safely implement in silicon with no risk of a zombie company husk coming after you, especially in the ASIC space where (as Dmitry himself recognized) anything is better than an 8051 core you need a copy of Keil C51 and a lot of patience to write code for. Even if you end up having to add custom extensions, it still is a much better starting point than coming up with your own bespoke ISA, building a toolchain around it and convincing potential customers that your proprietary architecture is worth the effort to deal with over another vendor's licensed Cortex-M cores with full GCC and LLVM support.
There are lots of somewhat successful yet little-known Chinese companies with their own proprietary architectures and the toolchains to match, so I don't think it's that clear-cut. (That said, most if not all of them are somewhat MIPS/RISC-V-ish anyway...)
I do think 8051 is better when you don't need 32 or even 16 bits. Even 4-bit MCUs are still around in ultra-low-cost ultra-high-volume products, which is to say RISC-V is, as you said, just a different flavour of MIPS with very similar tradeoffs.
Interestingly Synopsys's ARC's latest version ARC-V is RISC-V.
I think all major FPGA vendors now offer fully supported RISC-V soft cores either alongside their older proprietary ISAs or as the latest upgrade. Several (e.g. Microchip and Gowin) have included real RISC-V cores inside FPGAs.
5 years ago I would have agreed with this but now I'm not so sure. We live in an era where you can tell a robot "Here's some C code. Design a 64-bit ISA, write the Verilog to implement it in an FPGA, write a C compiler for it, and use it to compile the C code I showed you earlier."
And now your ISA and your compiler are part of your moat. I can just see the VCs salivating.
There are thousands of people who could design such an ISA in a couple of weeks, without any AI assistance.
The hard part, which has always been the moat of RISC-V, is writing all the required support software for a new ISA, i.e. all the utilities from binutils (assembler, static linker, ELF/DWARF utilities), compiler backends at least for gcc and llvm, debugger (at least a port for gdb server), dynamic linker and standard C library, possibly some parts of the standard libraries for other programming languages.
Previously this could have taken years and it is the only reason that has always justified the choice of RISC-V for minimum cost, despite how bad the ISA is.
If today the porting of all these software support applications to a new ISA could be accelerated with AI assistance from a couple of years to a couple of months, that would certainly enable the design and use of custom ISAs, and RISC-V would lose its appeal.
Let me know when you've got it all worked out and published. Should be easy, right?
That's why it's so bizarre that the RISC-V design is so awful.
The hard part is the software support side (though, as comments elsewhere in the thread point out, AI is pretty helpful there) and then those lovely pieces like specifying the precise behavior of interrupts.
If it had a snowball's chance in hell of going in to any kind of production anywhere, I'd have no problem spending the next month laying out an ISA. But, again, as this thread makes very, very clear: ISA really just doesn't matter.
With that said, RISC-V is a nice baseline for designing another architecture. Start with RISC-V, and go from there.
No links? You may have dreamt about it instead.
The only argument I've ever seen for RISC-V that's vaguely logical is that there's no licensing to Arm involved, but since I can get M0/M3 devices for a dollar or so with infinite tool and library support that's something that's totally irrelevant for most users. And if I don't mind going with Chinese suppliers there's no licensing to Arm being paid anyway.
Apart from being able to thumb your nose at Arm, I just can't see what the point of RISC-V is. Is that really all there is going for it?
How expensive is it to license the instruction set so you can expand it?
And how would you get this all into Clang? Nobody wants to use your custom compiler. It's certainly not going to be as fast as Clang!
Of course not because that's impossible to prove.
The RISC/MIPS concepts date back over 40 years. The base instruction set is intentionally designed with unencumbered, expired, or public-domain architectural concepts.
RICV-V microarchitectures and implementations are at much high risk of violating patents. Especially anything that is even slightly high performance. SiFive, Andes , and Alibaba’s T-Head are filing thousands of patents on microarchitectural optimizations and extensions. China's RISC-V patent-sharing alliances and other industry groups are building defensive patent cross-license around their RISC-V-related patents.
If you build your architecture on ideas that are documented to be older than twenty years, it greatly reduces the risk that a patent holder comes from nowhere: even if they did have the patent, it would have expired.
One reason that RISC-V has so many optional extensions is that you can trust the core is very likely to be patent-free (because everything in it is documented to be older than 20 years) and just evaluate the extensions you need.
Or in poster form: https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/RISC-V-Instruct...
The biggest tell is the mnemonics. While RISC-V takes a bunch of ideas from other places, and cleans things up, it copies a lot of mnemonics straight from MIPS.
But it also copies a lot of other ideas from MIPS, like the absolute distain for flag registers.
It's worst aspect maybe.
I don’t know enough about high performance microarchitecture design to evaluate that argument confidently, but it seems to make sense to me.
By the time you have an out-of-order core, there is already so much shared state you have to synchronise, and you have a bunch of complex mechanisms for dealing with it. Adding a flags register doesn't really add any more complexity, it's just a small bit of extra state attached to it.
And we already have the solution, it's register renaming. We are already renaming all the GPRs and FPRs, and we are probably also renaming part of fscr (because turns out, RISC-V does have flags for floating point operations), maybe a few other bits of state. So we just use the existing renaming mechanism to rename a bank of flags registers; That single logical shared flags register is actually backed with a bank of non-shared physical flags registers, neatly solving all concerns.
Sure, the renamed flags do take up a bit of die space. But IMO they don't add any extra design complexity, and shouldn't have any performance impact on maximum clock speed.
RISC-V isn't quite as disadvantaged by the lack of flags as some might suggest (and I wouldn’t say the lack of flags is RISC-V’s worst aspect), but there are a few sequences (add-with-carry, some conditional-moves, detecting overflow) where RISC-V is forced to burn an extra instruction or two to deal with the lack of flags, and IMO eliminating that would be worth the cost of slightly more die space.
Also, avoiding the need for dedicated compare-and-branch instructions would free up encoding space for other things (including larger range on branches)
I agree in general, we do however see that the cost of flags isn't free by the fact that most modern Arm processors only support ADCS on half of the ALUs supporting ADD. If it was free/negligible, you would see ADCS support on all ALUs.
The lack of flags on those ALUs probably tells us more about the lengths CPU designers will go for reasonably small savings than it tells us about how much flags actually costs. And it's probably more of a "our metrics never gave us enough justification to even consider adding flags to the extra three ALUs" than "we considered it, but the cost was too high".
By the time you have an out-of-order core
Doing the deliberate choice of leaving flags out of the core and then using them in the fp ops ext will nudge designers towards "this is probably the point you should think about out-of-order execution"
When you read their stuff, they're constantly overestimating the value of ultra-minimalist CPU designs in the modern context. In fact, they often show little understanding of the real impact of ISA design decisions on implementation complexity, so some of their decisions don't even make sense as minimalist decisions.
To expand on the low value of minimalism: even in trailing edge process nodes, if you're designing something on the scale of a simple single-issue in-order 32-bit RISC core targeting no particular frequency, gates are essentially free. The RISC-V guys are badly out of touch. If minimum gate count mattered as much as they think it does, there would still be a thriving market for 8-bit microcontrollers. Instead, they're steadily losing market share to 32-bitters, even in applications where an 8-bit µC would be more than enough. It's not the 1980s, you don't have to struggle to fit a featureful 32-bit core into a single die anymore, but they're hellbent on relitigating that era's debates.
But the argument in the spec explicitly uses the "added complexity to out-of-order microarchitectures" as a part of the justification for not having conditional move (and flags). It's the most commonly parroted part of the argument (see above) and the part of the argument I'm responding to.
I actually agree with much of the spec's argument. The cost of not having flags is pretty low, the MIPS approach does work pretty well, and it does simply things.
I'm just not sure it was the right trade off, and I strongly disagree with its attempt to use OoO cores as part of the justification.
I regard it as a mistake of RISC-V. The flag register was invented for good reasons, and dropping it is a trade-off I personally do not think is worth the downside.
Why?
The set of US patents, however, are not infinite and, IIRC, is also public. That said, IP laws are a mess.
That being said, I don't expect someone filing a new patent after a RISC-V extension being published to last much longer beyond discovery in most cases, which should keep costs in lower end. Specially so in cases of bad faith.
Heart of our system that powers a household name devices is a RISC-V multi-hart SoC. It does quite a bit - a little bit of compute, a little bit of DSP. Definitely not the best fit, but cheap and works well enough. The buggest gap for us was the lack of the decent debugging featurea like ARM's Data Watchpoint Traces - but maybe there is an extension for that already?
What's stopping them? They can trivially claim it infringes any number of patents...
is that... bit xor?
did they attempt signed immediate, but gave up 3 bits into a 32 bit immediate?
wtf
* The profile used by "Big SoCs" already explicitly depends on F + D + C, implying ZcdZcf, so the newer Zce won't be implemented.
* The compressed float load/store opcodes repurposed for Zce are often unimplemented on embedded processors.
* The ELF file has an attribute section telling you the exact ISA string. If you're debugging an embedded system you probably depend on the ELF file anyway for DWARF info as you likely don't have frame pointers.
If you disagree then that's ok, I'm happy to be disagreed with, but please explain.
Sure, this is messy. But, critically, on x86, these are all modes, and any CPU that supports them makes them detectable and supports them in the same way. If you run long mode code outside long mode, some opcodes will be interpreted as the wrong instruction. But you will not find multiple different CPUs that decode valid instructions differently. If I run your weird old x86 code, either it will run correctly or it will fault.
Oh, and all these modes are older than RISC-V. To the extent that there are lessons to be learned, RISC-V should have learned them.
The fact that you can apparently find two RISC-V CPUs that decode some ordinary user mode instructions based on published standards as entirely different operations is bizarre, to say the least. The fact that the relevant CPU features can’t even be enumerated in user mode just makes it worse.
(There are edge cases in x86. Some invalid opcodes have different lengths on different vendors’ CPUs. This is not a problem in practice because, one way or another, they fault. There was also a little glitch in the 64-bit design where some really really old x87 FPU code that uses exceptions cannot be corrected handled by a kernel on a modern CPU.)
Oh, that's not completely true. Intel 64 and AMD64 are not identical and they certainly have encodings that behave differently. As an example: f3 41 90 is pause on Intel, but xchg r8d, eax on AMD (granted, this is not a canonical instruction encoding). 66 e9 xx xx yy yy is a unconditional jump to a 32-bit relative offset on Intel, but on AMD, the offset is 16-bit only (yy yy are the start of the next instruction). x86-64 is typically used to refer to the very large common subset, but this doesn't mean the implementations behave identically.
There are also some weird corner cases where CPUs aren't 100% backwards compatible, just backwards compatible enough for the software that matters.
The x86 ISA includes a great number of bytes that are used as instruction prefixes, many of which are obsolete. The problem is that the effect of prefixes upon instructions has never been completely defined in any Intel or AMD documentation. The prefix effects have been documented for some instructions, but they were left unspecified for most other instructions.
This has lead to divergent implementations in the unspecified cases. Well-behaved compilers should not generate such undocumented combinations of instruction prefixes with base encodings.
In case of the jump example, the effects are documented by Intel and AMD and they still differ. Point of the GP was that all CPUs don't decode valid instructions differently, which is not fully accurate as shown by the examples; and some of these differences are also explicitly documented.
It's also not accurate that most prefixes are obsolete when most see regular use today (66 size override for 16-bit operations, f2/f3 for string operations, 66/f2/f3 mandatory prefix for many (e.g. SSE) instructions, 64/65 fs/gs override for thread-local storage access and per-thread kernel storage, f0 lock for atomic operations, 3e (again) for branch-taken hint, 4x REX prefix for r8-r15 and 64-bit operand size; one can argue that the 67 address-size override is useless, and only the 26, 2e, and 36 are ignored; I don't count VEX/EVEX/REX2 as prefixes but more as opcode escapes).
66 E9 is not a practical compatibility problem, though: it’s not a useful encoding of a useful instruction on any CPU :)
User-mode feature detection is usually used to select paths for acceleration instructions, like SIMD or crypto. The overlapping RISC-V instructions don't fit in that category: they're compressed versions of basic functions, mostly used in epilogs/prologs, which would be unconditionally compiled in.
There are no overlapping encodings in the 32-bit encoding space and I'm really hoping it stays that way.
> To the extent that there are lessons to be learned, RISC-V should have learned them.
Yeah, I think I agree with this. Also I wish I had been there when Andrew Waterman was writing his master's thesis so I could ask him not to include Whetstone in his size benchmarks, so that we might have left that encoding space free and avoided this conversation :-)
I represented my company as a founding member of the RISC-V foundation. I now shake my head at what it has become and hope I never have to write code for a RISC-V system again. Every time I check in it seems like some new insanity has manifest itself.
Separating the float load/stores from the rest of the compressed ISA is insanity? Why?
> Now I can't make vendor-independent RISC-V code
I think this is what RVA23 is for. Any system running shrinkwrapped binaries is going to have vanilla RVC.
I agree there is some insane stuff going on in RISC-V. Like when the double-trap spec was in public review I popped my head in to say "hi, this seems to break all existing code that uses nested interrupts because the condition is overly broad" and the spec maintainer said words to the effect of "yes, it's supposed to do that."
This is not that weird, though? Float load/store should never really have been included in the C extension, but we can't revise the C extension. So, define an extension for "C: the good parts", aka Zca, and separate extensions for float load/store (two of them because F and D are separate). Ideally we wouldn't have made the mistake in the first place, but what would have been a better way to redact it?
You thought RISC-V chips were compatible with each other beyond the basics? They're not. RISC-V is only a starting point for designing the ISA your chip will actually implement. Don't get me wrong - it's still beneficial that simple code works on many chips.
In HP's case, they tried running their JIT to translate from architecture B to architecture B and ended up with better performance than running it directly.
Exactly.
> It satisfies my two requirements for an ISA as a hobby CPU designer...
You probably have some unstated requirements as well, such as available toolchains and "vetted well enough to actually be able to run code."
Risc-V now occupies the Schelling point for people who, for whatever reason (rent-seeking and security top the list) want to leave the x86 and Arm ecosystems.
[1] https://github.com/Wren6991/Hazard3
[2] https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/rp2350/
[3] https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/risc-v-on-raspberry-pi-pico...
Makes me wonder if an "ARM cores fused off, RISC-V only, no ARM fees" SKU is possible.
> 1. Supported in mainline LLVM and GCC.
Which pretty well encapsulates the ecosystem requirements.