By: Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com), November 4, 2019 7:17 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
none (none.delete@this.none.com) on November 4, 2019 5:55 am wrote:
> Come on you're more knowledgeable than that. You can tell that of Thumb2 vs ARM. AArch64
> is as much an evolution of ARM as RISC-V is an evolution of MIPS.
If you push that far enough all ISAs are related and we can go home. That doesn't change the fact that the people who designed AArch64 were the same people and the same company that designed all the previous iterations of the ARM ISA and they did so with the goal of having mixed 32/64-bit implementations. That's not true of RISC-V and MIPS.
> Sorry but being a three-month project does not excuse the state of RISC-V. Quite the
> contrary.
So the base ISA designed by a large company with the support of other large companies is better than one that has been hacked together in three months in academia? Color me surprised.
> Come on you're more knowledgeable than that. You can tell that of Thumb2 vs ARM. AArch64
> is as much an evolution of ARM as RISC-V is an evolution of MIPS.
If you push that far enough all ISAs are related and we can go home. That doesn't change the fact that the people who designed AArch64 were the same people and the same company that designed all the previous iterations of the ARM ISA and they did so with the goal of having mixed 32/64-bit implementations. That's not true of RISC-V and MIPS.
> Sorry but being a three-month project does not excuse the state of RISC-V. Quite the
> contrary.
So the base ISA designed by a large company with the support of other large companies is better than one that has been hacked together in three months in academia? Color me surprised.