Talk:ARM architecture family
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ARM architecture family article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of ARM architecture was copied or moved into List of ARM microprocessor cores with this edit on 13 June, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of ARM architecture was copied or moved into List of applications of ARM cores with this edit on 22 June, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Index 1, 2, 3, 4 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. |
Arm is sentence case?
edit
ResolvedI'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)
- Re: MOS:TMCAPS ("follow the formatting and capitalization used by independent reliable sources"}. Arduino[1][2] and Raspberry Pi[3][4] use ARM. Also see [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 23 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. https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0024/a/armv8-a-architecture-and-processors/armv8-a - making these Wikipedia changes even more nonsensical --Davidcx (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- it's fair-use under Trademark Law. and obvious. think about it: if you are prohibited from using a trademark, how would anyone ever know it exists?? :) Lkcl (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see where somebody in this thread has made a claim about trademark law prohibiting the use of either "ARM" or "Arm". Guy Harris (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
You'll note that even Arm themselves use "Arm" for the company and "ARM" for the architecture and the chips
Not uniformly. See https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102404/latest/, https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0487/latest/, and https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0801/l/Overview-of-the-Armv8-Architecture/About-the-Arm-architecture, all of which use "Arm" for the architecture, and the third of which also refers to "Arm processors". https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0406/c uses "ARM" for the architecture and the company, but that's probably because it's "Copyright 1996-1998, 2000, 2004-2011 ARM Limited", and both were all-caps in the time frame in the copyright notice. https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0360/e also uses "ARM", but that's both because it's older and because Arm didn't retroactively rename the ARM11 chip to "Arm11", as far as I know. Guy Harris (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2025 (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)
Ironically ARM make AMD's x86 insecure?
editI'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):
https://www.wired.com/story/amd-backdoor-cts-labs-backlash/
https://hothardware.com/news/amd-processors-and-chipsets-ryzenfall-chimera-fallout-security-flaws
https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/security comp.arch (talk)
No instruction set?
editARM instruction set redirects here. Wouldn't it be better to list the instructions there? This page doesn't list the instructions, and I am looking for them, so I would greatly appreciate it. Joao003 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- It would be better not to list instructions on Wikipedia, at least for instruction sets with lots of instructions. I'm not sure whether x86 instruction listings should exist, for example.
- If you want ARM instructions, go to https://developer.arm.com/architectures and look through the search results for what you want. Guy Harris (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- for small CPUs like PICs perfectly reasonable, but ARM yeah has 7,000 now. total madness. categories, extensions, yes. tables with each extensions instructions, yes. full listings, no, agreed. Lkcl (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
"No support for unaligned memory accesses in the original version of the architecture"
editIs this true? Per the ARM2 data sheet (emphasis added): "A word load (LDR) should generate a word aligned address. An address offset from a word boundary will cause the data to be rotated into the register so that the addressed byte occupies bits 0 to 7. External hardware could perform a double access to memory to allow non-aligned word loads"
To me that doesn't sounds like "no support" as this article currently claims; it clearly farms the stuff of doing two 32-bit accesses and combining parts of each to external hardware but appears to offer a helping hand should the system be set up to do that — the external bus merely needs to gate each of the four bytes to ensure it presents each from the correct access, it doesn't need to rotate them into place.
I'd call this negligible support, but not "no support". 96.234.17.8 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. That's more a special behavior than no support. I'm wondering whether this was exploited in practice. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
"ARM" and "Arm"
editI found that "ARM" has changed its name to "Arm", and now the documentation almost uses "Arm"
For example document: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0487/ka#:~:text=Arm%20Architecture%20Reference%20Manual%20for%20A-profile%20architecture.%20For%20a%20list ShiinaKaze (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- AFAIK, this is not new. See the discussion #Arm is sentence case? above. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
ARMv9.6-R and ARMv9.6-M
editResearch the following and if you find any details about the following, please include them with their sources:
1) ARMv9.6-M
2) ARMv9.6-R 78.190.164.190 (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I researched it and found that Arm have, apparently, never announced any ARMv9-M or ARMv9-R architectures, much less a 9.6 version; there is, of course, no obligation whatsoever for Arm to offer, for every ARMv9.x-A version, a corresponding ARMv9.x-R or ARMv9.x-M version, so the lack of ARMv9.6-M or ARMv9.6-R is not particularly surprising. Thus, there are no details to include, other than, at most, their non-existence. Guy Harris (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Extensions not in their own page except jazelle
editslight annoyance and issue doing categorisation of extensions: the page is enormous, and in x86 and MIPS every extension is in its own page even if a stub. exceptions include sub-extensions of say AVX512 which got a bit rowdy. but even 2-instruction extensions have their own page. it's just cleaner Lkcl (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)