Comparisons of code compiled for x86 or RISC-V show that (on average), the RISC-...

snvzz · on June 19, 2023

And, amusingly, the instruction count is also very competitive, especially inside loops.

Furthermore, it achieves all of that with a much simpler ISA that matches x86 and arm in features, while having an order of magnitude less instructions to implement and verify.

userbinator · on June 19, 2023

Compiler output is not a good way to show off the best of an ISA (which is more an indictment of how bad compilers actually are at optimising for code density). Look at the demoscene. x86 can be an order of magnitude denser than lame compiler output.

RISC-V wasn't around when this paper was written, but it's close enough to MIPS to disprove the claim that "RISC-V code is significantly smaller": https://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_den...

snvzz · on June 19, 2023

>Averages over large bodies of code do not matter

>Compiler output does not matter

>1987 paper

>RISC-V encoding "close enough to MIPS"

>disprove the claim that "RISC-V code is significantly smaller"

F for effort.

userbinator · on June 19, 2023

1987 paper

Did you even look at the link?

Neither shilling nor trolling is welcome here. Is there a relationship you haven't disclosed with RISC-V?

snvzz · on June 19, 2023

>Did you even look at the link?

Yes, I did.

>RISC-V encoding "close enough to MIPS"

... while pointing at MIPS-X, 1987. Deranged.

>Is there a relationship you haven't disclosed with RISC-V?

Are you projecting? I have noticed a pattern in your appearances whenever a discussion about RISC-V pops up.