What does <open source anything> offer that trusty old <proprietary burden> doesn't already provide?

I would agree for FPGA soft-cpu the RISC-V is an obvious choice.

But in general, the next question will be which version did you deploy, and which cross-compiler do you use. All the documentation people search will have caveats, or simply form contradictory guidance.

The problem isn't the ISA, but the ill fated trap of trying to hit every use-case (design variant fragmentation.) ARM 6 made the same mistake, and ARM8/9 greatly consolidated around the 64 bit core design.

Indeed, an ISO standard may help narrow the project scope, but I doubt it can save the designs given the behavior some of its proponents have shown. =3

▲

Pet_Ant 19 hours ago | parent [-]

People complain about fragmentation, but I feel like they are missing the forest for the trees.

In the past if you didn't find something you needed, you'd design your own. Now you just tweak RISC-V.

I mean "12 variants of RISC-V" is actually less fragmentation than "RISC-V and 11 others".

As long as there is a stable core to target, that is all that matters for main stream adoption, and profiles and distros are already there with RVA23.

	▲	Joel_Mckay 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but what we saw was most software simply disabled the advanced vendor specific features in ARM, and still only compile for stable code around the core IP. This is an important phenomena committee consensus couldn't reconcile. =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect