1. Messages
  2. Smaller embedded version of the Vector extension

Re: Smaller embedded version of the Vector extension

Guy Lemieux
 

I’ve taken a stab at reducing the number of instructions in my RVV-lite proposal. The overriding goal, in my mind, is to preserve forward software compatibility so the ecosystem doesn’t need to fragment.

There are lots of instructions that are not essential which I have eliminated. Also, I have dropped or limited the scope of the widening and narrowing instructions — they are awkward to implement because they change the demand in register file read or write bandwidth
due to a mixing of data element sizes.

Limiting LMUL is far more difficult, because it is fundamental to the way RVV changes data widths. The best I could do in my proposal is require SEW/LMUL to always be 8.

I’m happy to share my proposal on request, but I’ve not broadcast it here because it still needs more work. I’d welcome any thoughts on improving it though.

Guy



On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:54 PM Gregory Kielian <gkielian@...> wrote:
Hi Everyone, wanted to continue this interesting discussion.


Was wondering if this is a complete listing of the requirements (so far) for the ZVE* extensions? or if there might be another document/spreadsheet/source-file which would have a running-list of requirements?

In particular, hoping to check if there might be a running-list of instructions required by the ZVE* extensions (e.g. if we would need to implement vector integer division) and the range of LMUL levels we would be required to support?

Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

All the best,
Gregory
Join {tech-vector-ext@lists.riscv.org to automatically receive all group messages.