[_chris_]

> L1i matters, people!

RISC-V consistently wins on L1i footprint.

The complaining is about number of dynamic instructions ("path length"), which can hit you if you don't fuse. Of course, path length might not actually be the bottleneck to raw performance, but it's an easy metric to argue, so a lot of people latch on to it.

[snvzz]

>The complaining is about number of dynamic instructions ("path length"), which can hit you if you don't fuse.

Ironically, RISC-V does great there[0]. Note this is despite these researchers did not even consider fusion.

0. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3624062.3624233

[dzaima]

Dunno about "great" - "For 6 out of 10 mini-app+compiler pairs, Arm has a shorter path length, with the overall average difference when weighting each benchmark equally being 2.3% longer for RISC-V."

[brucehoult]

Also the difference in number of instructions on real programs is in the 10% range, which could well be compensated by other factors. For example, keeping to simpler instructions might well result in a 10% higher clock speed and lower silicon area too, equalising matters if not gaining an advantage.