start filling in

[libreriscv.git] / isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn

diff --git a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
index 8b1bd501b87bb14a7af55ccc5f14552d9b5bfb2d..b7d187add35c5ececa614919fa8b5a0ba5e7305a 100644 (file)
--- a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
+++ b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
@@ -373,13 +373,19 @@ So to summarise:
   100% what the outcome will be (1).
 * The retro-fitting cost onto existing implementations (even though the
   specification has not been finalised) is negligeable
-  (changes to words in the specification);
+  (changes to words in the specification)
 * The benefits are clear (pain-free transition path for vendors to safely
   upgrade over time; no fights over Custom opcode space; no hassle for
   software toolchain; no hassle for GNU/Linux Distros)
 * The implementation details are clear (and problem-free except for
   vendors who insist on deploying dozens of conflicting Custom Extensions:
   an extreme unlikely outlier).
+* Compliance Testing is straightforward and allows vendors to seek and
+  obtain *multiple* Compliance Certificates with past, present and future
+  variants of the RISC-V Standard (in the exact same processor), in order
+  support legacy customers and provide same customers with a way to avoid
+  "impossible-to-make" decisions that throw out ultra-expensive multi-decade
+  proprietary legacy software at the same as the hardware.
 
 # Conversation Exerpts