[jgord]

busywork ... but maybe good marketing - people somehow believe that ISO has some relationship to quality.

[kazinator]

People with absolutely no technical clue who only know "ISO 9001" equate "ISO" with quality initiatives and certifications.

What people with a better clue sometimes wrongly equate ISO with is interoperability.

ISO standards can help somewhat. If you have ISO RISC V, then you can analyze a piece of code and know, is this strictly ISO RISV code, or is it using vendor extensions.

If an architecture is controlled by a vendor, or a consortium, we still know analogous things: like does the program conform to some version of the ISA document from the vendor/consortium.

That vendor has a lot of power to take it in new directions though without getting anyone else to sign off.

[IshKebab]

> is this strictly ISO RISV code, or is it using vendor extensions

I doubt it - the ISO standard will still allow custom extensions.

[Joel_Mckay]

A standard 64bit+DSP RISC-V would go a long way for undoing the fragmentation damage caused by the "design by committee" implications.

..it was the same mistake that made ARM6 worse/more-complex than modern ARM7/8/9. =3

[blurbleblurble]

Good marketing, this could open up more large investment into RISC-V.

[Joel_Mckay]

Be honest, what does RISC-V offer that 10 year old AArch64 doesn't already provide?

RISC-V is still too green, and fragmented-standards always look like a clown car of liabilities to Business people. =3