[libre-riscv-dev] [isa-dev] Re: FP transcendentals (trigonometry, root/exp/log) proposal

[Allen Baum]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:46 AM lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > If there is a measurable and significant improvement on some large
> > body of code, such as SPEC for example, then that would be grounds for
> > considering inclusion in a RISC-V Foundation standard extension.
>
> It took Jeff Bush on Nyuzi about... 2 years to get to the point of being
> able to do that level of assessment.
>

OK - but what's your point?
Or, rather, why do you expect that you can or should be able to skip 2
years of work?
Or, why should you expect anyone to make a major adoption of a standard
that might turn out to be fatally flawed because it was rushed to
ratification without the requisite homework?

If you want to create a standard (make no mistake, that's what you're
doing) that will be widely adopted, there is a lot of heavy lifting that
can't be swept under the rug.
I'm sorry to say that your team may have the resources to design something
pretty nifty - but not big enough to handle the other part of that, which
is to demonstrate it is the right nifty thing that others will adopt (at
the expense of adopting someone else's nifty standard).

You do have an advantage - SW developers will prefer an open source
solution - but not at the expense of a flawed open source solution, and it
is unfortunately up to you to show that it isn't flawed (to clear- I'm not
saying it is flawed - just that it needs evidence to back it up).