|Advice on C libraries firstname.lastname@example.org (John R. Levine) (2015-10-07)|
|Re: Advice on C libraries email@example.com (2015-10-08)|
|Re: Advice on C libraries firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2015-10-09)|
|Re: Advice on C libraries email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org) (2015-11-24)|
|From:||email@example.com (Aharon Robbins)|
|Date:||Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:11:15 +0000 (UTC)|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|Posted-Date:||09 Oct 2015 21:12:08 EDT|
The Google / Android "bionic" C library may be of interest as well.
The various *BSDs all have reasonable C libraries (POSIX compliant etc.)
If you're not targeting Linux specifically, then avoiding GLIBC probably
is a good idea.
My two cents.
In article 15-10-005, John R. Levine <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>I'm working with some people who are building a C language toolchain
>for a new 64 bit architecture. A large part of the work is getting
>the usual libraries to work.
>The obvious choice would be glibc, except that the C compiler is not
>gcc, and getting glibc to work with anything else is not for the faint
>of heart or short of time. We're looking at musl which seems quite
>promising, small, looks well coded, MIT license.
>Anyone have experience with it or advice to offer?
Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.