-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 230
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RISC-V Instruction Set Architecture Support #128
Comments
Yes, porting to the RISC-V architecture should be possible. At a glance, it looks to be fairly new - lacking a standard supervisor-mode instruction set. Is this correct? It appears that Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Fedora have added support for RISC-V, so there must be enough documentation to get going. That said, porting to a new architecture is a large task, starting with getting the third-party tool chain set up to cross compile. We're still on GCC 6.3.0, but it's nice that GCC 7.1 has support. Upgrading GCC would be the first step. Then comes writing the disassembler for the Minoca debugger to allow you to debug the boot process. It also looks like there is QEMU support for RISC-V, which may make getting over the initial boot hurdle easier. Do you have a RISC-V platform in mind? Any interest in tackling the port yourself? The previous paragraph is fair warning that it's not a one weekend project, but it would be fun. |
Yes. I believe the supervisor-mode instruction set is currently in the draft stage, while most of the rest of the ISA is standardized. I do not have a specific platform in mind; RISC-V is very young, and as far as I can tell there are only a handful of chips being made so far. I would like to work on this, but I believe it is beyond my abilities, and my knowledge of C is very limited. I will definitely be poking around though, and perhaps I will find it easier than expected. |
Would it be possible to support RISC-V in the future?
GCC has support for RISC-V beginning in version 7.1.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: