riscv-profiles VS riscv-opcodes

Ssstrict is supposed to address the undefined behaviour problem, or at least it'll make undefined instructions actually trap.

https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/main/rva23-prof...

>there are a lot of incompatible ISA implementations of RISC-V

This is common FUD.

In reality, most chips in the market, including all known application processors, follow the RVA profile[0] spec.

So do Linux distributions.

0. https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/releases

The bit manipulation [0] extension has been ratified for a while now and is part of the RVA22 application extension profile [1].

You can already buy SOCs that support it, e.g. vision five 2 and star64.

Interestingly the risc-v vector has it's own popcount instructions for vector registers/register masks. This is needed, because the scalable architecture doesn't guarantee that a vector mask can fit into a 64 bit register, so vector masks are stored in a single LMUL=1 register. This works really well, because with LMUL=8 and SEW=8 you get 100% utilization of the single LMUL=1 vector register.

Another interesting thing is that the vector crypto extension will likely introduce a element wise popcount instruction.

[0] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1....

[1] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/main/profiles.a...

That's why we have RISC-V profiles.

Yeah more or less. They now have RISC-V Application Profiles which are basically minimum requirements for "application processors" - essentially devices like phones where you might want to distribute binary apps.

The Profiles spec which includes RVA22 was finally ratified[0] last week.

0. https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/releases/tag/v1.0

Context: RISC-V profiles spec got ratified last week.

Yeah unfortunately there isn't really a great place that lists all the extensions with links and ratification status.

But anyway there is a sort of standard set of extensions that "application processors" (I guess CPUs that want to run precompiled code) should support:

https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/main/profiles.a...

The 22 indicates the year.

Ah, you're right: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/main/profiles.a...

That's good to see. (Boy, it's really hard to find info about RISC-V profiles on Google. It just seems to ignore all the letters and numbers.)

It uses machine-readable specs from https://github.com/riscv/riscv-opcodes ; yet I needed to extract immediate bit scrambling from their LaTeX sources :). I wonder if there is an easier way. Anyways, the opcode semantics are hand-coded and it simulates enough to boot linux.

A couple of hours work would allow someone to work it out exactly by parsing the files in https://github.com/riscv/riscv-opcodes. I don't know whether the existing parse.py explicitly works this out. It does check for conflicts. If it doesn't provide this information now then it should be easy to add.

Add instruction's match and mask values and optionally add DECLARE_INSN definitions (include/opcode/riscv-opc.h). You can use riscv-opcodes to generate those mask/match values.

I'm a bit surprised René doesn't know about either https://github.com/riscv/riscv-opcodes or https://github.com/michaeljclark/riscv-meta