| ▲ | Findecanor 6 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I've noticed that the sentence “Compliant with RVA23 excluding V extension” has apparently been a bit confusing to some reporters in the tech press lately. It means that the UR-DP1000 chip would have been RVA23-compliant if only it had supported the V (Vector) extension. The Vector extension is mandatory in the RVA23 profile. There are other chips out there even closer to being RVA23-compliant, that have V but not a couple of scalar extensions. The latter have been emulated in software using trap handlers, but there was a significant performance penalty. V is such a big extension, with many instructions and requiring more resources, that I don't think that it would be worth the effort. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | fidotron 5 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The latter have been emulated in software using trap handlers, but there was a significant performance penalty. This is a thing SoC vendors have done before without informing their customers until it's way too late. Quite a few players in that industry really do have shockingly poor ethical standards. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||