It would mean we need more RISC-V performant hardware. Because the real and honnest way out from C is assembly (with super high level languages with interpreters written in assembly). And it means a worldwide royalty free standard.
I guess we could get a middle ground with a simpler C dialect with the bits required for modern hardware architecture programming (no integer promotion, no implicit casts, only sized type, only one loop keyword, no switch...). The defining criteria for this language: it must be easy to get a real-life bootstrap compiler with one dev (reasonable amount of time, effort, etc).
I am currently coding many of my applications in RISC-V assembly, with a small interpreter to run them on x86_64, dodging complex macro-preprocessors (I use the basic features of a C preprocessor, I don't even use the RISC-V pseudo-ops).
The only thing keeping me on x86_64 are video games for linux and the fact that x86_64 micro-archs are mature, performant wise.
I guess we could get a middle ground with a simpler C dialect with the bits required for modern hardware architecture programming (no integer promotion, no implicit casts, only sized type, only one loop keyword, no switch...). The defining criteria for this language: it must be easy to get a real-life bootstrap compiler with one dev (reasonable amount of time, effort, etc).
I am currently coding many of my applications in RISC-V assembly, with a small interpreter to run them on x86_64, dodging complex macro-preprocessors (I use the basic features of a C preprocessor, I don't even use the RISC-V pseudo-ops).
The only thing keeping me on x86_64 are video games for linux and the fact that x86_64 micro-archs are mature, performant wise.