News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by adastra22 on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @05:27PM (#47328996)
Also the bit manipulation extension wasn't part of the core. So things like bit rotation is slow for no good reason, if you want portable code. Why? Who knows.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by adgjlsfhk1 on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @05:50PM (#47329220)
> Also the bit manipulation extension wasn't part of the core.

This is primarily because core is primarily a teaching ISA. One of the best parts about RiscV is that you can teach a freshman level architecture class or a senior level chip building project with an ISA that is actually used. Anything powerful to run (a non built from source manually) linux will support a profile that bundles all the commonly needed instructions to be fast.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by jacquesm on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @05:59PM (#47329311)
Bit manipulation instructions are part and parcel of any curriculum that teaches CPU architecture. They are the basic building blocks for many more complex instructions.

https://five-embeddev.com/riscv-bitmanip/1.0.0/bitmanip.html

I can see quite a few items on that list that imnsho should have been included in the core and for the life of me I can't see the rationale behind leaving them out. Even the most basic 8 bit CPU had various shifts and rolls baked in.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by rwmj on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @06:01PM (#47329322)
This is the reason behind the profiles like RVA23 which include bitmanip, vector and a large number of other extensions. Real chips coming very soon will all be RVA23.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by jacquesm on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @06:10PM (#47329408)
Neat. I can't wait to get my hands on a devboard.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by NekkoDroid on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @07:01PM (#47329864)
The earlierst I know of coming is the SpaceMit K3, which Sipeed will have dev boards for.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by statusfailed on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @07:29PM (#47330102)
The Milk-V Jupiter 2 (coming out in April) is RV23 too
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by jacquesm on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @07:38PM (#47330160)
Nice board but very low on max RAM.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by rwmj on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @06:45AM (#47333924)
The Milk-V Titan (https://milkv.io/titan) can take up to 64GB which is fine considering the number of cores and the cost of RAM. If you needed and could afford more RAM you'd be better off distributing the work across more than one board.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by jacquesm on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @09:27AM (#47335285)
I simply want to replace my desktop with open hardware. That board would be fine, thank you for the pointer.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by rwmj on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @09:34AM (#47335377)
Unfortunately they found a bug and had to redesign the boards. I've had one of these on pre-order since last year. Latest is I think they're intending to ship them next month (April).

The SpacemiT K3 (https://www.spacemit.com/products/keystone/k3 https://www.cnx-software.com/2026/01/23/spacemit-k3-16-core-...) is the one everyone is waiting for. We have one in house (as usual, cannot discuss benchmarks, but it's good). Unfortunately I don't think there is anyone reputable offering pre-orders yet.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by jacquesm on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @09:37AM (#47335426)
Ok! I will keep an eye out. It is one of the most interesting developments for me hardware wise in the last decade, and I definitely want to show my support by buying one or more of the boards. Respin is always really annoying this late in, the post mortem on that must make for interesting reading.

You're super lucky to have your hands on one!

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by kevin_thibedeau on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @06:32PM (#47329596)
32-bit barrel shifters consume significant area and RISC-V was developed to support resource constrained low cost embedded hardware in a minimal ISA implementation.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by adgjlsfhk1 on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @07:20PM (#47330031)
IIUC this is a lot less true in the modern era. Even with 24nm transistors (the cheapest transistor last time I checked), modern microcontrollers have a fairly big transistor budget for the core (since 80+% of the transistors are going to sram anyway).
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by jacquesm on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @06:55PM (#47329805)
You can save a lot of silicon by doing 8 or 16 bit shifters and then doing the rest at the code generation level. Not having any seems really anemic to me.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by pezezin on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @08:56PM (#47330665)
The 32-bit ARM architecture included a barrel shifter as part of its basic design, as in every instruction had a shift field.

If a CPU built in 1985 with a grand total of 26 000 transistors could afford it, I am pretty sure that anything built in this century could afford it too.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by snvzz on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @09:13PM (#47330779)
26k is a lot of transistors for an embedded MCU.

You'd be excluding many small CPUs which exist within other chips running very specialized code.

As profiles mandate these instructions anyway, there's no good reason to complicate the most basic RISC-V possible.

RISC-V is the ISA for everything, from the smallest such CPUs to supercomputers.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by wk_end on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @10:12PM (#47331077)
What MCUs are you thinking of?

To the best of my knowledge (and Google-fu), 26K really isn't a lot of transistors for an embedded MCU - at least not a fully-featured 32-bit one comparable to a minimal RISC-V core. An ARM Cortex M0, which is pretty much the smallest thing out there, is around 10K gates => around 40K transistors. This is also around the same size as a minimal RISC-V core AFAICT.

The ARM core has a shifter, though.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by snvzz on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @10:18PM (#47331118)
There's reason RV32E and RV64E, with half the registers, are a thing. RV32I/RV64I isn't small enough.

There are many chips in the market that do embed 8051s for janitorial tasks, because it is small and not legally encumbered. Some chips have several non-exposed tiny embedded CPUs within.

RISC-V is replacing many of these, bringing modern tooling. There's even open source designs like SERV that fit in a corner of an already small FPGA, leaving room for other purposes.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by wk_end on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @10:34PM (#47331200)
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count, even an 8051 has 50K transistors, which reinforces my claim that 26K really doesn't seem like a big ask for an MCU core. Whether that means a barrel shifter is worth it or not is a totally orthogonal question, of course.

(Although I do have to eat my words here - I didn't check that Wikipedia page, and it does actually list a ~6K RISC-V core! It's an experimental academic prototype "made from a two-dimensional material [...] crafted from molybdenum disulfide"; I don't know if that construction might allow for a more efficient transistor count and it's totally impractical - 1KHz clock speed, 1-bit ALU, etc. - for almost any purpose, but it is technically a RISC-V implementation significantly smaller than 26K)

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by userbinator on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @12:08AM (#47331660)
I don't know if that construction might allow for a more efficient transistor count and it's totally impractical - 1KHz clock speed, 1-bit ALU, etc. - for almost any purpose, but it is technically a RISC-V implementation significantly smaller than 26K

That sounds like a microcoded RISC-V implementation, which can really be done for any ISA at the extreme expense of speed.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by inkyoto on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @01:28AM (#47331998)
If I'm not mistaken, microcode is a thing at least on Intel CPU's, and that is how they patched Spectre, Meltdown and other vulnerabilities – Intel released a microcode update that BIOS applies at the cold start and hot patches the CPU.

Maybe other CPU's have it as well, though I do not have enough information on that.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by adgjlsfhk1 on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @10:59PM (#47331294)
> There's reason RV32E and RV64E, with half the registers, are a thing. RV32I/RV64I isn't small enough.

This is actually kind of counter to your point. The really tiny micro-controllers from the 80s only had 224 bits of registers. RV32E is at least twice that (16 registers*32 bits), and modern mcus generally use 2-4kbs of sram, so the overhead of a 32 bit barrel shifter is pretty minimal.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by torginus on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @05:25AM (#47333407)
It was the case even 15 years ago when Cortex M0/M3 really started to get traction, that the processor area of ARM cores was small enough to not make a difference in practice.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by bmenrigh on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @11:16PM (#47331382)
Yeah I don’t get it. Shifts and rolls are among the simplest of all instructions to implement because they can be done with just wires, zero gates. Hard to imagine a justification for leaving them out.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by hackyhacky on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @05:57PM (#47329291)
> One of the best parts about RiscV is that you can teach a freshman level architecture class or a senior level chip building project with an ISA that is actually used.

Same could be said of MIPS.

My understanding is the RISC-V raison d'etre is rather avoidance of patented/copywritten designs.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by adgjlsfhk1 on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @06:10PM (#47329407)
the avoidance of patent/copyright is critical for (legally) having students design their own chips. MIPS was pretty good (and widely used) for teaching assembly, but pretty bad for teaching a class where students design chips
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by userbinator on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @12:10AM (#47331667)
MIPS patents have long expired too (and incidentally for any other CPU released prior to 2006), so that's a moot point.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by musicale on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @12:14AM (#47331695)
This is largely disproven by the pre RISC-V, MIPS editions of Patterson & Hennessy and Harris & Harris, etc., which teach you how to design a MIPS datapath (at the gate level.)
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by musicale on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @12:12AM (#47331683)
As you probably know, MIPS was widely used in computer architecture courses and textbooks, including pre-RISC-V editions of Patterson & Hennessy (Computer Organization & Design) and Harris & Harris (Digital Design and Computer Architecture.

In spite of the currently mediocre RISC-V implementations, RISC-V seems to have more of a future and isn't clouded by ISA IP issues as you note.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by Joker_vD on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @09:58AM (#47335660)
> This is primarily because core is primarily a teaching ISA.

That doesn't necessarily make it all that great for industrial use, does it?

> One of the best parts about RiscV is that you can teach a freshman level architecture class or a senior level chip building project with an ISA that is actually used.

You can also do that with Intel MCS-51 (aka 8051) or even i960. And again, having an ISA easily implementable "on a knee" by a fresh graduate doesn't says anything about its other technical merits other than being "easily implementable (when done in the most primitive way possible)".

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by fidotron on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @05:31PM (#47329041)
The fact the Hazard3 designer ended up creating an extension to resolve related oddities was kind of astonishing.

Why did it fall to them to do it? Impressive that he did, but it shouldn't have been necessary.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by rllj on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @05:43PM (#47329145)
Which extension is that?
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by mjmas on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @06:00PM (#47329317)
An extension he calls Xh3bextm. For extracting multiple bits from bitfields.

https://wren.wtf/hazard3/doc/#extension-xh3bextm-section

There are also four other custom extensions implemented.

Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by wren6991 on Saturday March 14, 2026 @02:51PM (#47379843)
This extension wasn't strictly necessary but it makes decode of Arm instructions faster in the bootrom's Arm emulator.
Re:RISC-V Is Sloooow by mort96 on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @04:01AM (#47332794)
Do you typically care about portability to the degree that you want the same machine code to execute on both a Linux box and a microcontroller? Why?