[newpavlov]

>So just use misaligned loads if Zicclsm is supported.

LLVM and GCC developers clearly disagree with you. In other words, re-iterating the previously raised point: Zicclsm is effectively useless and we have to wait decades for hypothetical Oilsm.

Most programmers will not know that the misaligned issue even exists, even less about options like -mno-strict-align. They just will compile their project with default settings and blame RISC-V for being slow.

RISC-V could've easily avoided all this mess by properly mandating misaligned pointer handling as part of the I extension.

[dzaima]

Well, we don't necessarily have to wait for Oilsm; software that wants to could just choose to be opinionated and run massively-worse on suboptimal hardware. And, of course, once Oilsm hardware becomes the standard, it'd be fine to recompile RVA23-targeting software to it too.

> RISC-V could've easily avoided all this mess by properly mandating misaligned pointer handling as part of the I extension.

Rather hard to mandate performance by an open ISA. Especially considering that there could actually be scenarios where it may be necessary to chicken-bit it off; and of course the fact that there's already some questionability on ops crossing pages, where even ARM/x86 are very slow.

[newpavlov]

I am not saying that RISC-V should mandate performance. If anything, we wouldn't had the problem with Zicclsm if they did not bother with the stupid performance note.

I would be fine with any of the following 3 approaches:

1) Mandate that store/loads do not support misaligned pointers and introduce separate misaligned instructions (good for correctness, so its my personal preference).

2) Mandate that store/loads always support misaligned pointers.

3) Mandate that store/loads do not support misaligned pointers unless Zicclsm/Oilsm/whatever is available.

If hardware wants to implement a slow handling of misaligned pointers for some reason, it's squarely responsibility of the hardware's vendor. And everyone would know whom to blame for poor performance on some workloads.

We are effectively going to end up with 3, but many years later and with a lot of additional unnecessary mess associated with it. Arguably, this issue should've been long sorted out in the age of ratification of the I extension.

[dzaima]

2 is basically infeasible with RISC-V being intended for a wide range of use-cases. 1 might be ok but introduces a bunch of opcode space waste.

Indeed extremely sad that Zicclsm wasn't a thing in the spec, from the very start (never mind that even now it only lives in the profiles spec); going through the git history, seems that the text around misaligned handling optionality goes all the way back to the very start of the riscv/riscv-isa-manual repo, before `Z*` extensions existed at all.

More broadly, it's rather sad that there aren't similar extensions for other forms of optional behavior (thing that was recently brought up is RVV vsetvli with e.g. `e64,mf2`, useful for massive-VLEN>DLEN hardware).

[newpavlov]

>1 might be ok but introduces a bunch of opcode space waste.

I wouldn't call it "waste". Moreover, it's fine for misaligned instructions to use a wider encoding or be less rich than their aligned counterparts. For example, they may not have the immediate offset or have a shorter one. One fun potential possibility is to encode the misaligned variant into aligned instructions using the immediate offset with all bits set to one, as a side effect it also would make the offset fully symmetric.

[dzaima]

Of course that'd result in entirely-avoidable slowdown for the potentially-misaligned ops. Perhaps fine for a program that doesn't use them frequently, but quite bad for ones that need misaligned ops everywhere.

In terms of correctness, there's also the possibility of partially-misaligned ops (e.g. an 8B load with 4B alignment, loading two adjacent int32_t fields) so you're not handling everything with correct faults anyways.