Linux 6.14 RISC-V Kernel Adds Support For T-Head Vector Extensions, GhostWrite

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • phoronix
    Administrator
    • Jan 2007
    • 67368

    Linux 6.14 RISC-V Kernel Adds Support For T-Head Vector Extensions, GhostWrite

    Phoronix: Linux 6.14 RISC-V Kernel Adds Support For T-Head Vector Extensions, GhostWrite

    The RISC-V CPU architecture feature updates have now been submitted and merged for the nearly-over Linux 6.14 merge window...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
  • uid313
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2011
    • 6921

    #2
    RISC-V passes 99% of the tests for .NET so this year we might see RISC-V support in .NET. See issue 36748.

    Unfortunately VirtualBox does not have RISC-V support yet. Anything else does not support RISC-V?

    Comment

    • aviallon
      Senior Member
      • Dec 2022
      • 294

      #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      RISC-V passes 99% of the tests for .NET so this year we might see RISC-V support in .NET. See issue 36748.

      Unfortunately VirtualBox does not have RISC-V support yet. Anything else does not support RISC-V?
      qemu does

      Comment

      • ayumu
        Senior Member
        • Oct 2008
        • 665

        #4
        In number of Debian packages, risc-v is close to surpassing ppc64.

        Comment

        • willmore
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2012
          • 622

          #5
          Wait, last I asked, the GCC people said that they were not going to support (accept patches for, maintain them going forward, etc.) any pre-standard RISC-V extensions. So, to compile code for this you have to use a vendor patched or community patched gcc toolchain.

          So, is the kernel going to need a patched gcc to support this? Or did the GCC people change their policy? The latter would be *so* nice. Because the # of processors with this extension is huge.

          Comment

          Working...
          X