From d9e2513bac57717ad4f741f9045184e3c910b54c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:19:38 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] start filling in --- isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn index d0ed7ad6f..64fc5cb0c 100644 --- a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn +++ b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn @@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ within the current RISC-V Specification to transition to improved versions of the standard, regardless of whether the fixes are absolutely critical show-stoppers or whether they are just keeping the standard up-to-date (2). +With no transition path there is guaranteed to be tension and conflict +within the RISC-V Community over whether revisions should be made: +should existing legacy designs be prioritised, mutually-exclusively over +future designs (and what happens during the transition period is absolute +chaos). If several overlapping revisions are required that have not +yet transitioned out of use (which could take well over two decades to +occur) the situation becomes disastrous for the credibility of RISC-V. + It was also pointed out that Compliance is an extremely important factor to take into consideration, and that Custom Extensions (as being optional) effectively fall entirely outside of the Compliance Testing. At this -- 2.30.2