Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gpderetta 1101 days ago
The problem is that nobody is willing to pay a x100 penalty for security for general purpose computing.
1 comments
renox 1101 days ago
Even a very low penalty isn't something that the industry is willing to produce..

For example, the RISC-V is derived from the MIPS, the MIPS had some instruction to trap on integer overflow, it's a very minor penalty to have these instructions, and guess what? They haven't been included in RISC-V..

link
snvzz 1100 days ago
RISC-V would not add instructions w/o a strong justification, as simplicity has value in itself, and RISC-V is very RISC in recognizing that.

If it's not that frequent and it can be done with 2 instructions, it'd be quite hard to make the argument for a dedicated instruction.

link
renox 1100 days ago
Except that as soon as you have two instructions instead of one, people starts talking about cache pressure and turns off the safety. Optional security == no security.
link
snvzz 1100 days ago
By that same logic, you might as well run everything in M mode.
link