arm64 is an IP-locked ISA, namely it is not worth assembly writting, stick to plain and simple C.
RISC-V is. I am self-hosting many of my internet thingies. I plan to move to RISC-V only hardware and to rewrite my internet software directly in mono-threaded paranoid RISC-V assembly.
For sure. My laptop has an arm64 chip, which is why this is written in arm64. If I had an intel chip, it would be written in x86_64. RISC-V is very interesting, though, and I'd love to learn more at some point.
Good luck with your RISC-V asm stuff! Hit me up if you publish any of it :)
I have a good set of RISC-V thingies on internet already, but not cleanely in some git repositories (obsviously not on microsoft github.com or gitlab).
I am currently attempting to define some binary specifications for a wayland compositor on linux, and to do that I write RISC-V assembly which I run on x86_64 thx to a very small interpreter. So the "cleanup" will happen "after" I get my own real-life wayland compositor (I am currently finishing the memory layout for keyboard and mouse support if you were curious about it).
Letting people know here is seriously compromised: HN started to aggressively block web browsers which are not based on one of the 'whatwg cartel' web engines, or their security provider is in love with gogol, dunno, could be my internet lines actively filtered too :) noscript/basic HTML is the only way for web freedom.
Nothing else, I think what the're more concerned with is how open an architecture is.
I think with RISC-V if you wanted to design your own chips and stuff you can just do it, whereas ARM doesn't let you do that.
I'm not about to build my own chips so it doesn't matter all that much to me but I understand where the person is coming from. They'd rather write assembly for the more open architecture.
Exactly what I am doing: I have even a small interpreter to run RISC-V machine code, to a certain extend ofc, on x86_64, and I could just do that on arm64 too: since The 'R' is RISC-V, means "Reduced", such implementation is more than reasonable, even for one average dev.
Comments
arm64 is an IP-locked ISA, namely it is not worth assembly writting, stick to plain and simple C.
RISC-V is. I am self-hosting many of my internet thingies. I plan to move to RISC-V only hardware and to rewrite my internet software directly in mono-threaded paranoid RISC-V assembly.
For sure. My laptop has an arm64 chip, which is why this is written in arm64. If I had an intel chip, it would be written in x86_64. RISC-V is very interesting, though, and I'd love to learn more at some point.
Good luck with your RISC-V asm stuff! Hit me up if you publish any of it :)
I have a good set of RISC-V thingies on internet already, but not cleanely in some git repositories (obsviously not on microsoft github.com or gitlab).
I am currently attempting to define some binary specifications for a wayland compositor on linux, and to do that I write RISC-V assembly which I run on x86_64 thx to a very small interpreter. So the "cleanup" will happen "after" I get my own real-life wayland compositor (I am currently finishing the memory layout for keyboard and mouse support if you were curious about it).
Letting people know here is seriously compromised: HN started to aggressively block web browsers which are not based on one of the 'whatwg cartel' web engines, or their security provider is in love with gogol, dunno, could be my internet lines actively filtered too :) noscript/basic HTML is the only way for web freedom.
Why is that a problem? Google search returns 3K page arm64 ISA manual. What else do you need to write asm?
Nothing else, I think what the're more concerned with is how open an architecture is.
I think with RISC-V if you wanted to design your own chips and stuff you can just do it, whereas ARM doesn't let you do that.
I'm not about to build my own chips so it doesn't matter all that much to me but I understand where the person is coming from. They'd rather write assembly for the more open architecture.
Exactly what I am doing: I have even a small interpreter to run RISC-V machine code, to a certain extend ofc, on x86_64, and I could just do that on arm64 too: since The 'R' is RISC-V, means "Reduced", such implementation is more than reasonable, even for one average dev.