I'm working on making SIMD better in Dart. Dart supports RISC-V as a target architecture for compilation, but I'm not really excited about figuring out how to map the wasm-SIMD-style primitives to RISC-V's RVV and so I don't really plan to look into it at all.
This is mostly because their approach to SIMD is so different, but also because I can't test it at all. Are there any RISC-V "machines"? that one can use to do something useful or fun with that someone here could recommend?
I guess it would be fun seeing all my SIMD-fiable use-cases become orders of magnitude faster on RISC-V, too, but I sadly never hear anything about machines that use RISC-V.
> Dart supports RISC-V as a target architecture for compilation, but I'm not really excited about figuring out how to map the wasm-SIMD-style primitives to RISC-V's RVV and so I don't really plan to look into it at all.
On the one hand, this will be quite straight forward, but on the other hand quite disappointing.
Afaik Dart has a 128-bit only SIMD abstraction (so not performance portable by default).
Since the base "V" extension mandates a mininum vector length of 128-bit, you can trivially make codegen work for all vector length, by simply setting vl to 128/elementwidth.
But as with x86, if your native hardware vector length is larger than 128-bit, you leave performance on the table.
> This is mostly because their approach to SIMD is so different, but also because I can't test it at all. Are there any RISC-V "machines"?
I'd recommend using qemu for initial testing.
Hardware wise, the cheapest option is the orange pi rv2, which has 8 SpacemiT X60 cores, which are in-order and support 256-bit RVV. The Zhihe A210 is also interesting, but way to expensive for what it is.
If you have a higher budget, I'd recommend the SpacemiT K3, which is the fist RISC-V SBC with RVA23 support. It is has 8 SpacemiT X100 4-wide out-of-order cores, with 256-bit RVV.
There are several RISC-V machines. In the microcontroller world it's becoming more and more usual, but those won't have RVV. SpacemiT K3 based machines are probably your best bet when it comes to RISC-V processors with SIMD support. There are several manufacturers: Milk-V with the Jupiter II, Sipeed, Banana Pi, ...
> “CHERI is not an extension; CHERI is a new base,” Asanović clarified to the keynote audience.
> Addressing concerns that creating a new base ISA might fracture the open-source community, Asanović offered a devoted defense to EE Times. “CHERI is too invasive to be a simple extension on regular RISC-V, and so needs a new base ISA for that reason,”
To me it sounds like they're creating RISC-VI before RISC-V even winning the market.
What a circular argument that avoids answering the question. How does "it needs a new base ISA" address the concern about "might fracture the open-source community" even one bit? Why does the "journalist"/writer call that reply "a devoted defense", in what world is that any sort of defense?
ARM and Microsoft care about CHERI, that is enough to eventually make it happen, even if only on high integrity computing, like folks that still care about paying for Unisys ClearPath MCP.
Or eventually have its ideas come into the evolution of ARM MTE, Pluton, and Silicon, which increasingly becoming adopted, alongside the oldie SPARC ADI.
It is the x86 linage that keeps getting it wrong on hardware memory tagging solutions.
ARM and Microsoft don't "care" enough to do anything beyond a bit of token research. Maybe there will be some extremely niche chips one day, or maybe not because the problem can be solved 90% as well in software on ordinary hardware.
Microsoft and Apple will probably switch to CHERI RISC-V for their Secure Enclave/TPMs once it has proven itself in the field. That means there will be hundreds of millions of CHERI RISC-V processors in the world.
Not to mention the smartcard market which would mean billions of processors around the world.
The problems with CHERI are not whether it's technically good or not, it's organizational. It's an academic project that requires everyone to boil the ocean. They tried to get ARM interested and that didn't go anywhere and now they're trying to get RISC-V interested. But they haven't addressed any of the problems of why manufacturers would ever make a complex and completely incompatible chip for a problem that they (the manufacturers) don't have and don't care about, that can probably be solved 90% as well in software.
However you can do what Airbus do and formally prove your C code and use a formally proven toolchain like compcert to compile it. Or you can take a performance hit and add bounds checking to the C code[1]. Aircraft systems are probably the best chance that CHERI has, and that's pretty niche, small runs and very expensive, and still better solved in software.
While the consumer market is still years away from widespread RISC-V adoption, if you pay attention to the embedded / MCU market (especially Espressif & co) you will indeed come to the conclusion that RISC-V is inevitable and software maturity will probably come from these early adopters.
Krste wasn't even saying anything controversial. It's obvious that manufacturers will use the cheapest (free) least legally entangled option, and that this adoption will happen first amongst those with the tightest margins. And - Clayton's law[1] - it will eventually extend to the rest of the market (albeit over a very long time).
The good RISC-V designs are not free though and the free ones are not good. MCUs are not a category of computer to draw lessons from for the broader market.
x86 only missed the mobile market because of multiple bad business decisions, otherwise ARM (and RISC architectures overall) would have been relegated to more decades as backwater architectures.
There is nothing inevitable about anything as Apple controls its own silicon very tightly, Microsoft hasn't even really transitioned away from x86, and Android probably isn't very keen to transition away from ARM.
Now, embedded markets are different but they've always been different and the number of embedded programmers is dwarfed by non embedded programmers and regular users will for a long time never install an app on RISC-V.
It's an interesting journey, let's see where it takes us in 20 years.
Chinese companies are really into RISC-V and China both builds and uses a lot of smartphones, I'm very sure we won't have to wait 20 years for regular users installing apps on RISC-V hardware.
It was a decent little talk this one. Now that we are seeing RVA23 chips available we are starting to at least see a lot of software packages actively compiled for the platform. They aren't optimized much at all but they do run.
I am cautiously optimistic about the future of RISC-V. It is likely to start biting at the heals of ARM in another 5 years or so, and having no licensing fees makes it very attractive in that sense. Qualcomm and Apple will be very interesting in avoiding as many ARM licensing fees as possible even if initially in embedded systems. But it also allows for a lot of hardware to be locked down just like ARM and so it might not be so great for the end users. Time will tell.
All I know is that I look for the seeing Apple Silicon 2 launching in 2036 using this stuff. ;)
ARM64/AArch64 is about constrained consistency, but most RISCV standards groups still fail to recognize their ISA version fragmentation was a serious mistake. So no, it won't exist outside niche use-cases until the kids stop arguing over what RISCV even means in a general end-user context (example: BOOM flags.) =3
I'm working on making SIMD better in Dart. Dart supports RISC-V as a target architecture for compilation, but I'm not really excited about figuring out how to map the wasm-SIMD-style primitives to RISC-V's RVV and so I don't really plan to look into it at all.
This is mostly because their approach to SIMD is so different, but also because I can't test it at all. Are there any RISC-V "machines"? that one can use to do something useful or fun with that someone here could recommend?
I guess it would be fun seeing all my SIMD-fiable use-cases become orders of magnitude faster on RISC-V, too, but I sadly never hear anything about machines that use RISC-V.
> Dart supports RISC-V as a target architecture for compilation, but I'm not really excited about figuring out how to map the wasm-SIMD-style primitives to RISC-V's RVV and so I don't really plan to look into it at all.
On the one hand, this will be quite straight forward, but on the other hand quite disappointing.
Afaik Dart has a 128-bit only SIMD abstraction (so not performance portable by default). Since the base "V" extension mandates a mininum vector length of 128-bit, you can trivially make codegen work for all vector length, by simply setting vl to 128/elementwidth.
But as with x86, if your native hardware vector length is larger than 128-bit, you leave performance on the table.
> This is mostly because their approach to SIMD is so different, but also because I can't test it at all. Are there any RISC-V "machines"?
I'd recommend using qemu for initial testing.
Hardware wise, the cheapest option is the orange pi rv2, which has 8 SpacemiT X60 cores, which are in-order and support 256-bit RVV. The Zhihe A210 is also interesting, but way to expensive for what it is.
If you have a higher budget, I'd recommend the SpacemiT K3, which is the fist RISC-V SBC with RVA23 support. It is has 8 SpacemiT X100 4-wide out-of-order cores, with 256-bit RVV.
There are several RISC-V machines. In the microcontroller world it's becoming more and more usual, but those won't have RVV. SpacemiT K3 based machines are probably your best bet when it comes to RISC-V processors with SIMD support. There are several manufacturers: Milk-V with the Jupiter II, Sipeed, Banana Pi, ...
You can buy a RISC-V mainboard for the Framework Laptop, and it's relatively cheap (£170)
https://frame.work/gb/en/products/deep-computing-risc-v-main...
No don't buy this one, it doesn't support RVV. Their newer ones do, but those are a lot more expensive.
Good catch, thanks.
OrangePi RV2 might qualify for fun?
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-Linux-On-OrangePi-RV2
> “CHERI is not an extension; CHERI is a new base,” Asanović clarified to the keynote audience.
> Addressing concerns that creating a new base ISA might fracture the open-source community, Asanović offered a devoted defense to EE Times. “CHERI is too invasive to be a simple extension on regular RISC-V, and so needs a new base ISA for that reason,”
To me it sounds like they're creating RISC-VI before RISC-V even winning the market.
What a circular argument that avoids answering the question. How does "it needs a new base ISA" address the concern about "might fracture the open-source community" even one bit? Why does the "journalist"/writer call that reply "a devoted defense", in what world is that any sort of defense?
There's zero chance CHERI will go anywhere, I wouldn't worry about it.
ARM and Microsoft care about CHERI, that is enough to eventually make it happen, even if only on high integrity computing, like folks that still care about paying for Unisys ClearPath MCP.
Or eventually have its ideas come into the evolution of ARM MTE, Pluton, and Silicon, which increasingly becoming adopted, alongside the oldie SPARC ADI.
It is the x86 linage that keeps getting it wrong on hardware memory tagging solutions.
ARM and Microsoft don't "care" enough to do anything beyond a bit of token research. Maybe there will be some extremely niche chips one day, or maybe not because the problem can be solved 90% as well in software on ordinary hardware.
Microsoft and Apple will probably switch to CHERI RISC-V for their Secure Enclave/TPMs once it has proven itself in the field. That means there will be hundreds of millions of CHERI RISC-V processors in the world.
Not to mention the smartcard market which would mean billions of processors around the world.
Yeah, I feel like Rust has killed Cheri.
Do you have more details on why ? I just found stuff like: https://cheri-alliance.org/discover-cheri/rust-and-cheri/ Or https://rust.cheriot.org/2026/02/15/status-update.html
CHERI is valuable even for unsafe Rust code.
The problems with CHERI are not whether it's technically good or not, it's organizational. It's an academic project that requires everyone to boil the ocean. They tried to get ARM interested and that didn't go anywhere and now they're trying to get RISC-V interested. But they haven't addressed any of the problems of why manufacturers would ever make a complex and completely incompatible chip for a problem that they (the manufacturers) don't have and don't care about, that can probably be solved 90% as well in software.
The manufactures will do what costumers demand and if they demand safty then cheri will make a lot of sense to many costumers.
And you cant rewritte 50 years of C in Rust. And even in Rust you can still run into various issues.
However you can do what Airbus do and formally prove your C code and use a formally proven toolchain like compcert to compile it. Or you can take a performance hit and add bounds checking to the C code[1]. Aircraft systems are probably the best chance that CHERI has, and that's pretty niche, small runs and very expensive, and still better solved in software.
[1] I literally wrote the paper on this back in 1996: https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~phjk/BoundsChecking.html
I haven't exactly seen an outpouring of consumer demand for CHERI.
While the consumer market is still years away from widespread RISC-V adoption, if you pay attention to the embedded / MCU market (especially Espressif & co) you will indeed come to the conclusion that RISC-V is inevitable and software maturity will probably come from these early adopters.
Go!
Krste wasn't even saying anything controversial. It's obvious that manufacturers will use the cheapest (free) least legally entangled option, and that this adoption will happen first amongst those with the tightest margins. And - Clayton's law[1] - it will eventually extend to the rest of the market (albeit over a very long time).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Christensen
The good RISC-V designs are not free though and the free ones are not good. MCUs are not a category of computer to draw lessons from for the broader market.
is what every company that didn't understand disruption said.
I wouldn't bet against software inertia.
x86 only missed the mobile market because of multiple bad business decisions, otherwise ARM (and RISC architectures overall) would have been relegated to more decades as backwater architectures.
There is nothing inevitable about anything as Apple controls its own silicon very tightly, Microsoft hasn't even really transitioned away from x86, and Android probably isn't very keen to transition away from ARM.
Now, embedded markets are different but they've always been different and the number of embedded programmers is dwarfed by non embedded programmers and regular users will for a long time never install an app on RISC-V.
It's an interesting journey, let's see where it takes us in 20 years.
Chinese companies are really into RISC-V and China both builds and uses a lot of smartphones, I'm very sure we won't have to wait 20 years for regular users installing apps on RISC-V hardware.
It still requires Android to care about RISC-V, plenty of NDK stuff.
https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/abis
Then OSes like HarmonyOS and HarmonyOS NEXT aren't even that relevant outside China.
Finally the chips have to deliver in performance, to actually provide good mobile devices.
It was a decent little talk this one. Now that we are seeing RVA23 chips available we are starting to at least see a lot of software packages actively compiled for the platform. They aren't optimized much at all but they do run.
I am cautiously optimistic about the future of RISC-V. It is likely to start biting at the heals of ARM in another 5 years or so, and having no licensing fees makes it very attractive in that sense. Qualcomm and Apple will be very interesting in avoiding as many ARM licensing fees as possible even if initially in embedded systems. But it also allows for a lot of hardware to be locked down just like ARM and so it might not be so great for the end users. Time will tell.
All I know is that I look for the seeing Apple Silicon 2 launching in 2036 using this stuff. ;)
I thought Apple has a special deal with ARM as they were an early investor?
We still have to see a RISC-V implementation that comes even close to the performance of ARM
Rivos was competitive. Sadly bought by Meta and "disappeared" into the company.
Can you elaborate on
> But it also allows for a lot of hardware to be locked down just like ARM
Many of the underlying IP areas of RISK-V advanced features are not public implementations.
Yet there are still a lot of great projects around, that may end up in China grey market chip fabs at some point.
https://github.com/vortexgpgpu/vortex
ARM64/AArch64 is about constrained consistency, but most RISCV standards groups still fail to recognize their ISA version fragmentation was a serious mistake. So no, it won't exist outside niche use-cases until the kids stop arguing over what RISCV even means in a general end-user context (example: BOOM flags.) =3
5 years ago there was a req on the Apple job site for engineers familiar with RISC-V.
https://riscv.org/blog/apple-exploring-risc-v-hiring-risc-v-...