Apologies if this is old stuff already dismissed. But I give it a try anyway.
Wouldn't it make sense to separate more complex vector instructions from more trivial ones? Already with the very first base release ? Vector instructions can also be helpful in small devices #IOT #Edge #GAP8
#RISCY without the need to fully support floating point instructions or without the need for a quad multiply.
The suggestion would be to basically group vector extensions analogue to the standard instructions (I, M, F, D, Q, …), instead of having an already complex base and then subtract or re-define subsets of instructions
Wouldn't that be in-line with the RISC-V philosophy of modularity and simplicity ? The beauty would be that you have a non-vector and a vector group version.
Possible nomenclature based on order:
M: Standard Multiply Divide Instructions (MUL, ...)
V: Very Basic Vector Instructions (VSETVL, ...)
MV: Standard Multiply Divide Instructions and Very Basic Vector Instructions (MUL, VSETVL, ...
VM: Standard Multiply Divide Instructions, Very Basic Vector Instructions and Vector Integer Multiply\Divide Instructions (MUL, VSETVL, VMUL, ...)
F, D, Q analogue to M as suggested.
The V version will not be a 1:1 match with the standard version and will cover additional aspects. But it can be argued, that when you implement the V version (of M, F, D, Q, ...), then you most likely will have
the relevant standard counterparts implemented as well anyway.
Kind Regards, Tobias