2 RV32I Base Integer Instruction Set, Version 2.1

There is no dedicated stack pointer or subroutine return address link register in the Base Integer ISA; the instruction encoding allows any x register to be used for these purposes. However, the standard software calling convention uses register x1 to hold the return address for a call, with register x5 available as an alternate link register. The standard calling convention uses register x2 as the stack pointer.

Hardware might choose to accelerate function calls and returns that use x1 or x5. See the descriptions of the JAL and JALR instructions.

The optional compressed 16-bit instruction format is designed around the assumption that x1 is the return address register and x2 is the stack pointer. Software using other conventions will operate correctly but may have greater code size.

The number of available architectural registers can have large impacts on code size, performance, and energy consumption. Although 16 registers would arguably be sufficient for an integer ISA running compiled code, it is impossible to encode a complete ISA with 16 registers in 16-bit instructions using a 3-address format. Although a 2-address format would be possible, it would increase instruction count and lower efficiency. We wanted to avoid intermediate instruction sizes (such as Xtensa’s 24-bit instructions) to simplify base hardware implementations, and once a 32-bit instruction size was adopted, it was straightforward to support 32 integer registers. A larger number of integer registers also helps performance on high-performance code, where there can be extensive use of loop unrolling, software pipelining, and cache tiling.

For these reasons, we chose a conventional size of 32 integer registers for RV32I. Dynamic register usage tends to be dominated by a few frequently accessed registers, and regfile implementations can be optimized to reduce access energy for the frequently accessed registers [jtseng:sbbci]. The optional compressed 16-bit instruction format mostly only accesses 8 registers and hence can provide a dense instruction encoding, while additional instruction-set extensions could support a much larger register space (either flat or hierarchical) if desired.

For resource-constrained embedded applications, we have defined the RV32E subset, which only has 16 registers (Chapter [rv32e]).

The alignment constraint for base ISA instructions is relaxed to a two-byte boundary when instruction extensions with 16-bit lengths or other odd multiples of 16-bit lengths are added (i.e., IALIGN=16).

Instruction-address-misaligned exceptions are reported on the branch or jump that would cause instruction misalignment to help debugging, and to simplify hardware design for systems with IALIGN=32, where these are the only places where misalignment can occur.

Some platforms may require that opcodes reserved for standard use raise an illegal-instruction exception. Other platforms may permit reserved opcode space be used for non-conforming extensions.

Decoding register specifiers is usually on the critical paths in implementations, and so the instruction format was chosen to keep all register specifiers at the same position in all formats at the expense of having to move immediate bits across formats (a property shared with RISC-IV aka. SPUR [spur-jsscc1989]).

In practice, most immediates are either small or require all XLEN bits. We chose an asymmetric immediate split (12 bits in regular instructions plus a special load-upper-immediate instruction with 20 bits) to increase the opcode space available for regular instructions.

Immediates are sign-extended because we did not observe a benefit to using zero-extension for some immediates as in the MIPS ISA and wanted to keep the ISA as simple as possible.

Sign-extension is one of the most critical operations on immediates (particularly for XLEN>32), and in RISC-V the sign bit for all immediates is always held in bit 31 of the instruction to allow sign-extension to proceed in parallel with instruction decoding.

Although more complex implementations might have separate adders for branch and jump calculations and so would not benefit from keeping the location of immediate bits constant across types of instruction, we wanted to reduce the hardware cost of the simplest implementations. By rotating bits in the instruction encoding of B and J immediates instead of using dynamic hardware muxes to multiply the immediate by 2, we reduce instruction signal fanout and immediate mux costs by around a factor of 2. The scrambled immediate encoding will add negligible time to static or ahead-of-time compilation. For dynamic generation of instructions, there is some small additional overhead, but the most common short forward branches have straightforward immediate encodings.

We did not include special instruction-set support for overflow checks on integer arithmetic operations in the base instruction set, as many overflow checks can be cheaply implemented using RISC-V branches. Overflow checking for unsigned addition requires only a single additional branch instruction after the addition: add t0, t1, t2; bltu t0, t1, overflow.

For signed addition, if one operand’s sign is known, overflow checking requires only a single branch after the addition: addi t0, t1, +imm; blt t0, t1, overflow. This covers the common case of addition with an immediate operand.

For general signed addition, three additional instructions after the addition are required, leveraging the observation that the sum should be less than one of the operands if and only if the other operand is negative.

         add t0, t1, t2
         slti t3, t2, 0
         slt t4, t0, t1
         bne t3, t4, overflow

In RV64I, checks of 32-bit signed additions can be optimized further by comparing the results of ADD and ADDW on the operands.

In a system for which endianness is byte-address invariant, the following property holds: if a byte is stored to memory at some address in some endianness, then a byte-sized load from that address in any endianness returns the stored value.

In a little-endian configuration, multibyte stores write the least-significant register byte at the lowest memory byte address, followed by the other register bytes in ascending order of their significance. Loads similarly transfer the contents of the lesser memory byte addresses to the less-significant register bytes.

In a big-endian configuration, multibyte stores write the most-significant register byte at the lowest memory byte address, followed by the other register bytes in descending order of their significance. Loads similarly transfer the contents of the greater memory byte addresses to the less-significant register bytes.

Misaligned accesses are occasionally required when porting legacy code, and help performance on applications when using any form of packed-SIMD extension or handling externally packed data structures. Our rationale for allowing EEIs to choose to support misaligned accesses via the regular load and store instructions is to simplify the addition of misaligned hardware support. One option would have been to disallow misaligned accesses in the base ISAs and then provide some separate ISA support for misaligned accesses, either special instructions to help software handle misaligned accesses or a new hardware addressing mode for misaligned accesses. Special instructions are difficult to use, complicate the ISA, and often add new processor state (e.g., SPARC VIS align address offset register) or complicate access to existing processor state (e.g., MIPS LWL/LWR partial register writes). In addition, for loop-oriented packed-SIMD code, the extra overhead when operands are misaligned motivates software to provide multiple forms of loop depending on operand alignment, which complicates code generation and adds to loop startup overhead. New misaligned hardware addressing modes take considerable space in the instruction encoding or require very simplified addressing modes (e.g., register indirect only).

We do not mandate atomicity for misaligned accesses so execution environment implementations can use an invisible machine trap and a software handler to handle some or all misaligned accesses. If hardware misaligned support is provided, software can exploit this by simply using regular load and store instructions. Hardware can then automatically optimize accesses depending on whether runtime addresses are aligned.

A device might observe an access to a memory location via some external communication mechanism, e.g., a memory-mapped control register that drives an interrupt signal to an interrupt controller. This communication is outside the scope of the FENCE ordering mechanism and hence the FENCE instruction can provide no guarantee on when a change in the interrupt signal is visible to the interrupt controller. Specific devices might provide additional ordering guarantees to reduce software overhead but those are outside the scope of the RISC-V memory model.

Because FENCE RW,RW imposes a superset of the orderings that FENCE.TSO imposes, it is correct to ignore the fm field and implement FENCE.TSO as FENCE RW,RW .

We chose a relaxed memory model to allow high performance from simple machine implementations and from likely future coprocessor or accelerator extensions. We separate out I/O ordering from memory R/W ordering to avoid unnecessary serialization within a device-driver hart and also to support alternative non-memory paths to control added coprocessors or I/O devices. Simple implementations may additionally ignore the predecessor and successor fields and always execute a conservative fence on all operations.

The SYSTEM instructions are defined to allow simpler implementations to always trap to a single software trap handler. More sophisticated implementations might execute more of each system instruction in hardware.

ECALL and EBREAK were previously named SCALL and SBREAK. The instructions have the same functionality and encoding, but were renamed to reflect that they can be used more generally than to call a supervisor-level operating system or debugger.

EBREAK was primarily designed to be used by a debugger to cause execution to stop and fall back into the debugger. EBREAK is also used by the standard gcc compiler to mark code paths that should not be executed.

Another use of EBREAK is to support “semihosting”, where the execution environment includes a debugger that can provide services over an alternate system call interface built around the EBREAK instruction. Because the RISC-V base ISAs do not provide more than one EBREAK instruction, RISC-V semihosting uses a special sequence of instructions to distinguish a semihosting EBREAK from a debugger inserted EBREAK.

    slli x0, x0, 0x1f   # Entry NOP
    ebreak              # Break to debugger
    srai x0, x0, 7      # NOP encoding the semihosting call number 7

Note that these three instructions must be 32-bit-wide instructions, i.e., they mustn’t be among the compressed 16-bit instructions described in Chapter [compressed].

The shift NOP instructions are still considered available for use as HINTs.

Semihosting is a form of service call and would be more naturally encoded as an ECALL using an existing ABI, but this would require the debugger to be able to intercept ECALLs, which is a newer addition to the debug standard. We intend to move over to using ECALLs with a standard ABI, in which case, semihosting can share a service ABI with an existing standard.

We note that ARM processors have also moved to using SVC instead of BKPT for semihosting calls in newer designs.

These HINT encodings have been chosen so that simple implementations can ignore HINTs altogether, and instead execute a HINT as a regular instruction that happens not to mutate the architectural state. For example, ADD is a HINT if the destination register is x0; the five-bit rs1 and rs2 fields encode arguments to the HINT. However, a simple implementation can simply execute the HINT as an ADD of rs1 and rs2 that writes x0, which has no architecturally visible effect.

As another example, a FENCE instruction with a zero pred field and a zero fm field is a HINT; the succ, rs1, and rd fields encode the arguments to the HINT. A simple implementation can simply execute the HINT as a FENCE that orders the null set of prior memory accesses before whichever subsequent memory accesses are encoded in the succ field. Since the intersection of the predecessor and successor sets is null, the instruction imposes no memory orderings, and so it has no architecturally visible effect.

We anticipate standard hints to eventually include memory-system spatial and temporal locality hints, branch prediction hints, thread-scheduling hints, security tags, and instrumentation flags for simulation/emulation.