How are processes isolated from one another if there is no MMU? Is there some other form of memory protection? That doesn't seem likely?
Not having process isolation really limits the applicability of the chip.
This looks like to be a bare-metal (or RTOS) embedded system. It usually is for running a single application so isolation between processes doesn't make much sense. FreeRTOS doesn't even have concept of process neither, but tasks, which is similar to threads with preemption and deadline.
Furthermore MMU is often avoided in embedded systems because it violates hard real-time requirements: Translation table walking can take place while an interrupt occurs so it causes unpredictable worst-case execution time.
In case of ARM Cortex-M and R series they have Memory Protection Unit (MPU) instead of MMU to protect critical memory region.
(FreeBSD has RiscV support for versions with an MMU.)
Even getting up to the level of competing with the mid ARM market will take huge investment. That is of course possible, but to do it RISC V will need to be backed by a very well funded body along the lines of the Linux Foundation, with strong support from big industry players. The sort of support that ARM already has. Until and unless that happens, I'm afraid it will stay a niche low end option.
RISC-V is popular in that young industry because it is credible and meets their criteria, and that value is similar elsewhere (particularly in India).
> For better or worse...
If the world would let the PRC gain a lead in semiconductors, it would be an unequivocal moral failure; I say this with great personal warmth for Chinese people. The world is a more grotesque and unfree place with every gain of the CCP.
Just wait couple decades...
This is why I'm not just waiting, I'm getting richer, and I will continue not to do business or politics benefitting the CCP whenever possible.
That's all anyone can do. You can't help but lose if you give up before starting. If things go well, I can do more, maybe go help secure trade secrets in Taiwan, or document CCP controlled forign land and infrastructure purchases; if not, at least I don't see a coward in the mirror.
I think the fear is a bit justified. Admitting that you have moral principles means that people can hold you to them, and in fact that you will be held to them, as nobody is perfect. People with no moral principles can't be held to account, since they don't participate in morality! :- )
(Real question, because I'm only aware of the opposite).
Kuka is doing not that good: https://m.dw.com/en/changes-at-german-robotics-firm-kuka-rai... But I am not sure if Chinese investor is the problem. Kuka had often problems in the past.
It’s not enough statistical data for serious conclusions, but I assume that these investors are trying to buy more companies in foreign countries and not to scare locals.
This is thoroughly wrong. China has a large number of fabless design places which have been going for years, and is now starting to get into manufacturing in a big way. Lately it's been driven by the trade war (so that worked well ...)
Assuming that USA, Russia, and China are not hidden allies then we might be able to buy risc-v manufactured chips from other countries to prevent domestic spy agencies from accessing private data, but then there is no guarantee that USA, Russia, and China are not allies. Perhaps they share data with each other at similar capabilities to Five Eyes.
At the worst case we got some open source chip design that will constantly evolve. Perhaps we might be able to print such CPU chips at home but that is decades away.
Tbh you'd have a hard time since either you're trying to measure a few milliwatts in a very noisy environment (either very low wattage, so various effects dominate, or high wattage, where your equipment will quickly get very very expensive).
I think a lot of people are talking about "closed source" security as in nation-state level actors and "backdoors": https://www.csoonline.com/article/3220476/researchers-say-no...
2) Usually people mean all of CMOS scaling (ie Dennard Scaling) when they refer to "Moore's law ". Exponential increase in power density is low key useless...
More details on Wikipedia, and there's some nice answers as to why it's a bad idea these days on SO. To summarize, the branch delay slot optimization makes exception handling and debugging much more complicated, doesn't bring much added performance if you have a deep pipeline, and modern branch prediction can render the the branch delay slot optimization moot anyway.
It should be said that it wasn't necessarily a dumb thing back in the days, but rather that it's a dumb thing on a modern architecture.
Why are branch delay slots a bad thing?
A lot of small things added up
A strong team
Because I think ownerships changes with time, but most of these brand, thinking, management are still very much British.
> are built around designs, known as instruction-set architectures (isas), which are owned either by Intel, an American giant, or by Arm, a Japanese one
Who owns the ARM IP? A Japanese company. Not a British one.
If you asked me if ARM has a British history and possibly culture, then yes (it certainly pays like a British company!) But that wasn't the context - the context was who effectively owns the IP.
So what do you think is more likely? The Economist are mistaken about the history of the company, or they were using a different context, the one they actually make explicit in the article?
>Who owns the ARM IP? A Japanese company. Not a British one.
ARM, a British Company, owned by Japanese Funds.
Because to me that is like saying HSBC is owned by Chinese if HSBC had Ping An and other shadow investors owning majority of it, but certainly HSBC is a British Company right?
P.S - I means no offence in case any Brits got the wrong end of the stick. Just genuinely curious.
I think they're culturally British. I don't think they are British owned or that their IP is British owned. Which was the context of the discussion.
The Land Rover office may still look and feel British, but it's Tata gets the final say, and perhaps one day decides they will all be made in India. Or perhaps Poland post no-deal Brexit.
> and so we named it RISC-V. As one of our goals in defining RISC-V was to support research in data-parallel architectures, the Roman numeral ‘V’ also conveniently served as an acronymic pun for “Vector.”
so maybe in a way “vee” isn’t so inappropriate after all ^_^
Not to mention the "Plus" vs "Max" and all the other naming convention mismatches.
Anyway, I agree with you.
I also say "macosix" and "windos" (and used to say "solarix") as generic alternatives to commercial trademarks.
Marketing departments can only propose pronunciation, they cannot dictate it, and they have no right or power to prevent inventing synonyms for the trademarks they control. They also have no authority over verbs, so e.g. "googling" is a generic term right out of the gate.
There won't be a RISC-VI, so it doesn't matter that it means "5" to some people.