From b30edc59345432dbb6784e2fda4a03a4cab93f3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:36:45 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] start filling in --- isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn index 13f0c5681..8b1bd501b 100644 --- a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn +++ b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn @@ -366,6 +366,21 @@ and is the only idea that meets the three requirements: that have Custom Extensions, come under the "vendor/arch-id read only is a declaration of having no Custom Extensions" fall-back category) +So to summarise: + +* The consequences of not tackling this are severe: the RISC-V Foundation + cannot take a back seat. If it does, clear historical precedent shows + 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); +* 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). + # Conversation Exerpts The following conversation exerpts are taken from the ISA-dev discussion -- 2.30.2