Talk:ARM architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).

Ironically ARM make AMD's x86 insecure?[edit]

I've not yet read all the security paper saying: "The AMD Secure Processor, the gatekeeper responsible for the security of AMD processors, contains critical vulnerabilities." Note the AMD Platform Security Processor (I assume the same thing), built into their x86 CPUs, is ARM with TrustZone.

It's not clear that the ARM core and/or TrustZone (never looked to closely at it) is to blame and most reporting doesn't mention ARM but rather the non-open source code it runs. It seems it is to blame, possibly not the core running it. Be aware of that before blaming ARM here on this page; this is just FYI, and for discussion here.

Other links maybe helpful (first one where I discovered this before looking up the others): comp.arch (talk)

Update desperately needed[edit]

As of right now, this article describes the "now" as it was in 2011, at the latest, with ARM being described as a 32-bit architecture. It then mentions in the lead that it has been announced that 64-bit architecture is coming in the ARMv8-A. The entire ARM architecture#64/32-bit architecture section is a series of announcement after announcement, over a period of years, of successive plans for the ARMv8-A, giving the impression that the company keeps announcing things one after another without ever actually accomplishing any of it. If these things have occurred, then the series of events should describe what has been released; after innovations have been released, it's no longer relevant to tell us that they were announced. And the lead should reflect the current state of the architecture, not what it was seven years ago. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there may be confusion over the 'announcements'; because ARM does not manufacturer chips it just designs. Perhaps the announcements are stating a design is complete, hence its part of the job is done. It could be useful to state which manufacturers have created chips based on each of the designs. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I see your point, I think, but then it would be clearer to indicate that new specs have been "released". And the lead still speaks of the 32-bit architecture as the current state of the technology. Largoplazo (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the lede to make it clear that 64-bit is now support by ARMv8. To my knowledge all the architectures feature 32bit length instructions, including ARMv8 which has 64-bit addressing and arithmetic. The only exception being the Thumb which can use 16-bit length instructions. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
32-bit is still current. It's a little confusing because there are two main instruction sets, AArch32 and AArch64. When ARMv8 was released it was believed to be the new 64-bit version, keeping compatibility with AArch32 too, but some ARMv8, i.e. the later ARMv8-R are only 32-bit. That is, all the microcontrollers are still only 32-bit (Thumb is however a complication, and yes, with 16-bit instructions). comp.arch (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Confusingly, there's:
  • the "Arm architecture", which incorporates:
    • the CPU architecture, which has three profiles (A, R, and M, nudge nudge wink wink) and multiple versions (currently 6, 7 and 8);
    • multiple system architectures;
    • multiple security architectures;
    • three instruction sets - A32 (the 32-bit-instruction/32-bit-data-and-addresses ISA, descended from the original ARM ISA), T32 (the variable-length-instruction/32-bit-data-and-addresses ISA, descended from Thumb and Thumb2), and A64 (the 32-bit-instruction/64-bit-data-and-addresses ISA).
The A profile of ARMv8 has, in addition, two "execution states", AArch64 and AArch32. AArch64 includes:
  • "The AArch64 Application Level Architecture";
  • "The AArch64 Instruction Set", which is A64;
  • "The AArch64 System Level Architecture";
and AArch32 includes:
  • "The AArch32 Application Level Architecture";
  • "The AArch32 Instruction Sets", plural, which are T32 and A32;
  • "The AArch32 System Level Architecture".
ARMv7-A and ARMv7-R have two instruction sets, "ARM" and "Thumb"; "Thumb" includes Thumb-2. ARMv6, apparently, is similar, but Thumb-2 is an extension. Guy Harris (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ARM64 Microsofts release of .NET 5.0 includes ARM64 support now gives their 5 million programmer base access to compile on this instruction set. If anyone out there has deeper knowledge of ARM64 instruction set now is the time to create a spinoff page describing the instruction set. TheKevlar 13:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ARM-based chips and Intel[edit]

I doubt that in ARM architecture#Core licence, paragraph "Companies that have developed chips with cores designed by Arm Holdings [...]", the mention of Intel is correct. There is no source and the only ARM-based chips listed in Template:Intel processors are StrongARM and XScale, whose cores have been designed by DEC and Intel respectively (the latter being a redesign or the former). The article Intel will start building ARM-based smartphone chips (The Verge, August 2016) mentions a licensing agreement with ARM to "produce ARM-based chips in Intel factories", but this does not mean chips developed by Intel itself, but rather by other companies. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Arm is sentence case?[edit]

Resolved – All instances of ARM capitalized except for references to the company. (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that user User:JBMagination has changed all references to "ARM" in this article to sentence-case "Arm", citing company trademark policy. Doesn't this violate MOS:TM, as most sources still use Arm capitalized as "ARM"? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If it is, I will gladly revert it. JBMagination (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Please at least revert the names of the chips -- the CPU was never called the 'Arm1' but the ARM1, etc. MatthewWilcox (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: Are you thinking of MOS:TMCAPS, which says

For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow the formatting and capitalization used by independent reliable sources.

Note, though, that Arm isn't using mixed capitalization (if by that they mean camel case or stuff such as eBay and iPod) or non-capitalization, as they're capitalizing it proper-noun-style.
(This is a bit like Sun Microsystems, where the "Sun" originally came from the Stanford University Network, for which the original SUN workstation was designed, but - as I suspect I've said about a trillion times in USENET posts :-) - they were "Sun Microsystems", not "Stanford University Network Microsystems". The change from "ARM" to "Arm" didn't happen when the company was created, so it's not exactly the same, but it might be a bit similar.) Guy Harris (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this change, but I think that ARM should be retained at least in the history section to reflect the way it was written at that time. And what is used in official documents? (For instance, in France, the public institute INRIA has been deacronymized to Inria for the communication, but this has not been changed in legal texts yet.) Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Please revert. If there is a stylisation change going forward, then this can be reflected in the article, if/when the usage reaches wide-scale acceptance, ie. in the mainstream press. …The historical naming should probably remain as it has for the last ~35 years, since that is what is being reported/summarised in the majority of the article. TL;DR: ideally ARM1; or as an imperfect compromise, formatted as Arm1 could also work. —Sladen (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Someone has gone through with a machete changing ARM to Arm - presumably what is referred to in this section. This includes all the historical references. The Acorn RISC Machine architecture was "ARM" not "Arm". There was never an "Arm610 microprocessor". etc. etc. Almost none of the usages of "Arm" in this article make any sense whatsoever. This article is not about the company which has renamed itself, and they cannot rewrite history. You'll note that even Arm themselves use "Arm" for the company and "ARM" for the architecture and the chips - e.g. - making these Wikipedia changes even more nonsensical --Davidcx (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from anything else discussed just above, I would suggest altering the phrase "usually written as such today' to "often still written as such" NotesTracker (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing Operating Systems[edit]

I'd like to see a listing for postmarketOS. RichMorin (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


Is the logo actually for the ARM architecture, or is it just the logo of Arm Holdings? (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

Why has this page been renamed from "ARM architecture" to "ARM (architecture)"? I'm surprised because this doesn't follow the usual names in Category:Instruction set architectures, such as Clipper architecture, IBM System/360 architecture, Mill architecture, MIPS architecture, PDP-11 architecture, IBM POWER instruction set architecture, TRIPS architecture, Unisys 2200 Series system architecture. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: And the only comment on the contested move appears to have been negative. Guy Harris (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ARM architectureARM (architecture) – minor nitpick: disambiguator in brackets (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
IBM System/370 covers both the family of computers and its instruction set architecture. IBM System/390 does the same. z/Architecture covers the instruction set architecture (the name of which explicitly includes the word "Architecture"); there are separate pages for 1) the microprocessors that implement it and 2) the systems built from those microprocessors.
Clipper architecture is a page that covers both the Clipper line of chips and its instruction set architecture; arguably, it should be called "Clipper (microprocessor family)". This would be similar to, for example, the VAX page, which has a section describing the instruction set, but which covers more than just the instruction set. SPARC is another such page, as are RISC-V and PowerPC.
MIPS architecture covers the instruction set; MIPS architecture processors and List of MIPS architecture processors cover the implementations.
ARM architecture covers the instruction set, with all of its different versions, profiles, "execution states" ("AArch32" and "AArch64", although they don't call them "application architectures" or whatever "AArch" is supposed to stand for), and instruction sets (AArch32, and the only execution state of pre-ARMv8-A processors, support the 32-bit ARM instruction set, called "A32" for ARMv8-A, and may also support the Thumb and Thumb-2 instructions, called "T32" for ARMv8-A - the R and M profiles are different there - and AArch64 supports the 64-bit A64 instruction set), although some of it has been moved into AArch64. There are various pages covering ARM's and other vendors' implementations of the architecture.
WP:BRACKETDIS points to the same section that WP:NATURALDIS, WP:COMMADIS, and WP:DESCRIPDIS point to (and, in fact, I think the correct link is WP:PARENDIS, as they list that, not WP:BRACKETDIS, under "Policy shortcuts"). The first choice they offer for disambiguation is "Natural disambiguation", and this seems to fit this case and the other "XXX architecture" cases. Guy Harris (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 2020 edit[edit]

After completing the creation of the PSA Certified page, I am looking to update outdated information elsewhere on Wikipedia. A revised version of the Platform Security Architecture subsection of this page has been rewritten and expanded [Platform Security Architecture at user:RichardDigital47/sandbox. Please also view my userpage to read my COI declaration.RichardDigital47 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ferkijel (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information[edit]

Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I propose that we nuke the multiple long lists of operating systems. If someone wishes to split out a new article List of operating systems that support the ARM architecture from out of List of operating systems, they are free to do so, but the reality is that there are now very few operating systems that don't support ARM. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. IMHO, this should be transformed into a text saying how this evolved in the history. And perhaps list the operating systems specifically designed for ARM (with some explanations). — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)