this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
47 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

952 readers
22 users here now

A tech news sub for communists

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It could just be that they're already invested in the architecture they built, and don't see much value in switching.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Fair, but I still think they should switch. I don't think it would be too difficult anyway. It should mostly amount to rewrite of the decoder as can be inferred from the fact that it is mostly a superset of MIPS64.

The perceived benefits, are being independent of the west on technology. Which RISC-V already provides.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are chinese companies making RISC-V chips and machines: https://milkv.io/pioneer

I get the impression that LoongArch has more priority because they fully own that ISA which means foreign entities such as the US Empire can have 0 impact on it. If something happens to RISC-V that could put China at a disadvantage they still have LoongArch. If they go all in on RISC-V they could easily get fucked or bullied into submission, that's my view anyways.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There's no danger in using RISC-V -- if the official standard is compromised somehow, China can just make their own "fork". I think it's more likely just a business decision by Loongson. Unless it's replaced, it'll likely become an open standard eventually

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Good point, I didn't think of that! Either way, I'm quite happy to see more general purpose RISCs emerge. At this point I'm just really sick of dealing with Intel's CISC crap lol.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I'd like to see more people contributing to RISC-V as well. I'm just saying they probably have their reasons for pursuing the current approach. I tend to give people benefit of the doubt because a lot of the time the devil is in the details. It'll be interesting to watch how this develops one way or the other I suspect.