On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 21:24:07 -0400 "Dale R. Worley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> they had a monopoly on SPARC processors, or at least, in licensing the > IP therefore. Hence they had an incentive to ensure all of the > hardware interface bric-a-brac was well-defined for whatever class of > computers they were targeting. I feel the need to turn this on its head: why do you think RISC-V *isn't* well-defined? Your arguments imply that you think RISC-V is some kind of half-baked amateur CPU architecture with no academic or industrial support. -- \m/ (--) \m/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
