TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

RISC-V: What’s Missing and Who’s Competing

186 点作者 SemiTom超过 4 年前

10 条评论

azhenley超过 4 年前
I’ve had a lot of fun learning RISC-V assembly off and on over the last year. I went through a colleague of mine’s tutorial series on implementing an operating system targeting RISC-V using Rust. Now I’m working on my own small assembler for RISC-V.<p>It’s been so much more fun to learn than x86!<p>Edit: link to the tutorial (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;osblog.stephenmarz.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;osblog.stephenmarz.com&#x2F;</a>)
评论 #24602587 未加载
评论 #24603985 未加载
评论 #24604926 未加载
评论 #24607890 未加载
01100011超过 4 年前
Does anyone know how well RISC-V will be able to compete with ARM in the higher end? It seems pretty easy to come up with a processor design that is competitive in low-compute load applications, but what about more advanced designs? I&#x27;m curious what it is that ARM brings to the table there and if there is a chance that RISC-V will ever offer serious competition.<p>Certainly RISC-V does not need to be the best to survive as a viable option for most designs. It may absorb a lot of market share from ARM in the long run. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
评论 #24603042 未加载
评论 #24602908 未加载
评论 #24603821 未加载
评论 #24602725 未加载
评论 #24602961 未加载
评论 #24604021 未加载
lawrenceyan超过 4 年前
FYI, if you&#x27;d like to try your hand at designing your own open source RISC-V processor, you can fab it for free here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fossi-foundation.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;skywater-pdk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fossi-foundation.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;skywater-pdk</a>
评论 #24603466 未加载
ncmncm超过 4 年前
I can tell you what&#x27;s missing: a POPCOUNT instruction.<p>Yes, there is one in the proposed &quot;B&quot; extension. Not good enough: it won&#x27;t be in the smaller chips, or even in the biggest ones for a good while.<p>But the article is interesting in noting all the stuff that we just don&#x27;t see when we buy a gadget. The amount of sheer engineering effort that goes into real products that millions of people rely on is stunning. It takes a very large amount of actual money changing hands to generate the amount of invisible effort that is needed to support the things we use every day. The lack of that expenditure will make RISC-V adoption much slower than we might otherwise expect.
评论 #24604767 未加载
评论 #24603164 未加载
评论 #24604681 未加载
评论 #24604931 未加载
评论 #24604340 未加载
rramadass超过 4 年前
The &quot;Shakti&quot; RISC-V based open source processor - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;shakti.org.in&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;shakti.org.in&#x2F;</a>
评论 #24604426 未加载
denotational超过 4 年前
Very frustrating reading the comments from the Aldec marketing head, and it&#x27;s really disappointing to see such comments coming from a company which has previously engaged so much with the open-source community (they&#x27;ve actually put some effort into proper support for co-simulation using the Python-based cocotb).<p>For example:<p>&gt; Q: What’s still missing out of the design flow? Do all the tools work with RISC-V? &gt; A: The main thing is the lack of UVM support.<p>This answer just seems like a category error: UVM is (for all intents and purposes) a library for SystemVerilog; an ISA does not &quot;have UVM support&quot;, they just aren&#x27;t even closely related. Perhaps he means that (open-source) implementations of RISC-V cores haven&#x27;t been verified using UVM, or that open-source functional-verification tooling typically doesn&#x27;t support UVM?<p>There are two reasons that no-one is using UVM in the open-source community: it&#x27;s absolutely <i>unbelievably</i> dreadful, and full SystemVerilog support is generally lacking from open-source tooling. Unless you&#x27;ve got $$$$ to spend on a Big-3 simulator (let&#x27;s be honest, no-one is using Aldec simulators to tape out an ASIC), you <i>can&#x27;t</i> use UVM even if you wanted to.<p>&gt; UVM would give you constrained random verification, functional coverage, and re-usability.<p>UVM (along with most of the &quot;software&quot; features of SystemVerilog, and pretty much everything else that&#x27;s come out of Accellera) is a load of utter rubbish that unfortunately won&#x27;t die. These advantages have absolutely nothing to do with UVM, or even to do with using SystemVerilog as a verification language: they can all be achieved by co-simulating designs with testbenches written in a better language, for example cocotb testbenches written in Python.<p>The reason why UVM is so prevalent has absolutely nothing to do with its suitability or superiority over other frameworks, and everything to do with the cabal of EDA vendors who are trying to maximise their profit: just consider that Cadence has net profits over double that of Arm, and it becomes apparent that the companies who use these tools are &quot;small fish&quot; compared to the companies making them, as perverse as this may be. Arm would much rather write RTL than tooling, so they&#x27;re completely at the mercy of the Big-3: if Cadence says that UVM is the only way forward, Arm (and the rest of the industry) is pretty much compelled to follow.<p>&gt; Along those lines, we see big problems on the business side. The open-source business model makes it very difficult for companies to make an investment. We do see open source becoming a huge movement, and we’ve already seen that happen in the software domain. But for EDA, and particularly hardware verification tools, we’re still gauging what we’re going do with it. You need to make sure that whatever you invest is going to generate a return on that investment.<p>The subtext here is that EDA vendors <i>absolutely don&#x27;t under any circumstances</i> want a strong open-source community in the hardware design space: as soon as the community reaches a critical mass, open-source EDA tooling might start to become a more-and-more viable alternative for use in industry, and the EDA vendors might actually have to start doing some work.<p>I&#x27;m convinced that the first place this will happen is formal verification: SiFive is already using Kami [1], which came from Adam Chlipala&#x27;s group at MIT and is open-source. The costs of formal verification are absolutely worth it in expensive ASIC projects, but it seems EDA vendors (and even companies like Arm) have been <i>really</i> slow to see the light. There&#x27;s a continuous stream of developments in this space coming out of academia which can be used for real-world projects.<p>The general state of the EDA industry is dire. My employer recently spent about $1.5MM renewing licences for a Big-3 simulator: this is the same tool which I can consistently make segfault in about 10 different ways. The quality of tooling is appalling, and the industry is <i>incredibly</i> slow to react. I&#x27;m really hopeful that projects such as RISC-V will stimulate the open-source hardware community enough that we might actually see some change in this space.<p>[1] : <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;sifive&#x2F;Kami" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;sifive&#x2F;Kami</a>
评论 #24628902 未加载
评论 #24603235 未加载
评论 #24603625 未加载
Teknoman117超过 4 年前
I&#x27;ve personally been having a lot of fun trying to write a rv32im processor in an HDL. I know people have already done this, but this is for a fun learning experience!
TimSchumann超过 4 年前
I actually just ordered a HiFive1 Rev B to play around with. Kinda excited for the potential of RISC-V, we&#x27;ll see how much wind this article takes out of my sails. Thanks for sharing it.
ape4超过 4 年前
No integer overflow instruction I read on Hacker News the other day.
评论 #24602985 未加载
评论 #24602880 未加载
farseer超过 4 年前
Why would companies prefer riscv over openPower?
评论 #24606447 未加载
评论 #24608480 未加载