[hajile]

That raises an interesting point -- the original MIPS ISA hasn't been patent encumbered in quite a while (and even then, only two non-essential instructions were patent protected). Why should a person is this unknown ISA instead of MIPS?

[_chris_]

RISC-V started off from a modified MIPS ISA, but we frankly ran out of opcode space. We needed 64b, IEEE floating point, and a ton of opcode space to explore new accelerator and vector ISA extensions.

Even the smallest changes to MIPS to clean up things like branch delay slots means it's a new ISA anyways, so you get zero benefit keeping it "mostly MIPS". You can read a bit more about this in the "history" section in the back of the user-level ISA manual.

[userbinator]

I think it may be to avoid any political/legal issues - despite the patents having expired, MIPS still sells ISA licenses. On the other hand, RISC-V basically is most of MIPS (but most RISC ISAs are very similar anyway).

They also avoided the patented instruction issue completely by removing all alignment restrictions from the regular load/store; probably a good idea, with memory bandwidths being the bottleneck now and buses growing wider - the extra hardware is also negligible, basically a barrel shifter and logic to do an extra bus cycle if needed.

[FullyFunctional]

The specification (http://riscv.org/riscv-spec-v2.0.pdf) clearly states the reasons. It has nothing to do with political/legal issues. There are very good technical reasons for designing a new ISA.

That RISC-V resembles MIPS is a testament to what was good about the MIPS design, however if you look closely you will find the many ways in which RISC-V is different.

Truly, the specification is highly readable and the footnotes enjoyable. Having implemented multiple MIPS cores and so far one RISC-V core, I'm deeply impressed with the care that went into the design.