← Back to context

Comment by jgord

20 hours ago

busywork ... but maybe good marketing - people somehow believe that ISO has some relationship to quality.

15 comments

jgord

Reply
kazinator  19 hours ago

People with absolutely no technical clue who only know "ISO 9001" equate "ISO" with quality initiatives and certifications.

What people with a better clue sometimes wrongly equate ISO with is interoperability.

ISO standards can help somewhat. If you have ISO RISC V, then you can analyze a piece of code and know, is this strictly ISO RISV code, or is it using vendor extensions.

If an architecture is controlled by a vendor, or a consortium, we still know analogous things: like does the program conform to some version of the ISA document from the vendor/consortium.

That vendor has a lot of power to take it in new directions though without getting anyone else to sign off.

  • IshKebab  14 hours ago

    > is this strictly ISO RISV code, or is it using vendor extensions

    I doubt it - the ISO standard will still allow custom extensions.

  • Joel_Mckay  18 hours ago

    A standard 64bit+DSP RISC-V would go a long way for undoing the fragmentation damage caused by the "design by committee" implications.

    ..it was the same mistake that made ARM6 worse/more-complex than modern ARM7/8/9. =3

blurbleblurble  20 hours ago

Good marketing, this could open up more large investment into RISC-V.

  • Joel_Mckay  18 hours ago

    Be honest, what does RISC-V offer that 10 year old AArch64 doesn't already provide?

    RISC-V is still too green, and fragmented-standards always look like a clown car of liabilities to Business people. =3