Writing a RISC-V Emulator in Rust

See this justification doesn't make any sense to me. The motivation is that it makes high performance network routing faster, but only in situations where a) you don't implement Zbb (which is a real no-brainer extension to implement), and b) you don't do the packet processing in hardware.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but that sounds like an illogical design space. If you're willing to design a custom chip that supports big endian for your network appliance (because none of the COTS chips do) then why would you not be willing to add a custom peripheral or even custom instructions for packet processing?

Half the point of RISC-V is that it's customisable for niche applications, yet this one niche application somehow was allowed and now it forces all spec writers and reference model authors to think about how things will work with big endian. And it uses up 3 precious bits in mstatus.

I guess it maybe is too big of a breaking change to say "actually no" even if nobody has ever actually manufactured a big endian RISC-V chip, so I'm not super seriously suggesting it is removed.

Perhaps we can all take a solemn vow to never implement it and then it will be de facto removed.

I'm not sure that there's much undue complexity, at least on the kernel side. You just need to ensure that the process running with 32-bit pointers can avoid having to deal with addresses outside the bottom 32-bit address space. That looks potentially doable. You need to do this anyway for other restricted virtual address spaces that arise as a result of memory paging schemes, such as 48-bit on new x86-64 hardware where software may be playing tricks with pointer values and thus be unable to support virtual addresses outside the bottom 48-bit range.

The academic argument Linus himself made is alone reason enough that big-endian SHOULD be included in the ISA. When you are trying to grasp the fundamentals in class, adding little endian's "partially backward, but partially forward" increases complexity and mistakes without meaningfully increasing knowledge of the course fundamentals.

No zbb support is also a valid use. Very small implementations may want to avoid adding zbb, but still maximize performance. These implementations almost certainly won't be large enough to run Linux and wouldn't be Linus' problem anyway.

While I've found myself almost always agreeing with Linus (even on most of his notably controversial rants), he's simply not correct about this one and has no reason to go past the polite, but firm "Linux has no plans to support a second endianness on RISC-V".

Most importantly, big-endian numbers have overwhelmingly won the human factor. If I write 4567, you don't interpret it as 7 thousand 6 hundred and fifty-four. Even an "inverted big-endian" (writing the entire sequence backward rather than partially forward and partially backward like little endian) makes more sense and would be much more at home with right-to-left readers more than little endian too.

Saying "you can have big-endian in your ISA, but we won't be supporting it" is very different from railing on about the ISA having big-endian at all.

> Interpreter performance significantly improved in the Android 7.0 release with the introduction of "mterp" - an interpreter featuring a core fetch/decode/interpret mechanism written in assembly language

From https://source.android.com/docs/core/runtime/improvements

You have a completely different use case from the OP, but still had no problem telling them that they were doing it wrong, so it’s pretty funny to see you use this line of defense for your choice.