RISC V is not much more than a slightly tweaked MIPS, the previous "preferred academic architecture", and we all know what happened to that... much to the chagrin of those who thought MIPS would be "the future of computing".

My prediction is that it will probably replace MIPS where it's currently used (very low-end tablets and phones, and a lot of home routers), but won't really displace ARM or x86. A "pure RISC" like MIPS and now RISC V just doesn't have the "CISCness" that makes successful CPUs beyond the theoretical.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188396-the-final-isa-sho...

Look at the results for the Loongson. It has at least twice as much cache as the others and 4-way OoO, yet after normalising for clock frequency and process power, it manages to be dead last in efficiency on 3 out of 4 of the benchmarks.

I've been following trends in the industry since the 90s. The "RISC dream" is still very much a dream. Trying to get an overly simple and restrictive ISA to perform well is sheer folly. Things that the RISC proponents thought would matter (decode complexity, number of architectural registers, addressing mode complexity) actually didn't, and what they thought wouldn't matter (memory bandwidth/latency, clock speed, instruction density), did. A denser, more intel-ligent (pun fully intended) ISA is what x86 and ARM is moving toward, while the MIPS/RISC advocates are going backwards.

https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tue1130celio-fu...

This is a processor comparison. The Loongson is the only 90nm chip here. No wonder it has no chance against 32nm and 40nm chips. The 60nm A8 also performs horribly.

But in general, these more complex instructions are where most of the microarchitectural optimisation happens. The BCD instructions mentioned in the above link were originally implemented in microcode and took dozens of cycles; for example, AAD took 60 cycles on an 8086, but only ~4 on a Skylake (and can be scheduled in parallel with the uops of other instructions) --- despite the little use it has today. A look at instruction timing tables[1] shows that the common idea of little-used instructions receiving no optimisation or even becoming much slower with each new processor generation is mostly false (there are exceptions, like the ill-fated P4.)

[1] http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf

Hey, That's unfair to C! If an OS is reckless enough to give a process memory when it asks for it, it should have no business worrying about what the process does with the allocation!

In all seriousness though, the language can't be held responsible for poor programming practices.

For any insecurities resulting from c code, blame the compiler!

:)

All the attention from RISC-V comes down to the fact that the creators like to trash talk proprietary ISAs like x86 and ARM and they like to put RISC-V under the banner of being "new and clean". This leads the average joe (and by "average joe" I mean software engineers without any background in hardware or in CPU architecture) to dream of a "Linux of CPUs", thinking they could hack something overnight and magically have a working open hardware, even though the CPU is just a small part of the entire system.

At the academia level, RISC-V is a very good thing since it allows to research new kinds of architecture without being bound by proprietary ISAs. But at the industrial level, it's just hype.

Wrong. I believe most people here are focused on high performance implementation (servers, desktops, laptops) and Risc V won't get there for a long time, if at all. High performance needs very high investment, to work closely to the fabs to tweak a design to make the most of new process nodes. Only big players can afford this. So if you have only this in mind, yes Risc V may sound like hype.

But there's a huge domain of embedded designs, with small scale CPU where the cost matters a lot. There are many niche players there, like Cortus, Andes, BA Semin and now SiFive. ARM is also there with Cortex M, but it's expensive and the line-up has holes (big gap between M and A/R series). Yes, ARM is expensive at the low end. ARM is cheap at the high end, when compared to Intel. Not at the low end. So far all these players have suffered from a limited ecosystem. With dedicated ISAs, each one had to support their toolchain with limited resources, and limited 3rd party support. What Risc V offers to them is the ability to leverage a significant ecosystem. They can focus on the CPU core implementation, with value added customization (extra instructions, accelerators, ...) and support, and leverage all the tooling around Risc V with much little effort. This makes a big difference. And all of them are moving to Risc V, it's their future. As a user, it does make a big difference to me. Instead of a lagging GCC toolchain, I'll soon have access to recent GCC and LLVM based tools for example.

For IoT in general, Risc V offers the possibility to have an open system, which in the end means more competition and lower costs, with no lock-in from some big actors "owning" the ISA you're using. A lot of people are looking at this seriously.

So no, Risc V is not hype. And there's already industrial changes. You just need to look at the deeply embedded world.