Re: Advice on C libraries

arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:11:15 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Advice on C libraries johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) (2015-10-07)
Re: Advice on C libraries arnold@skeeve.com (2015-10-08)
Re: Advice on C libraries gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2015-10-09)
Re: Advice on C libraries lpsantil@gmail.com (lpsantil@gmail.com) (2015-11-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:11:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 15-10-005
Keywords: C, library
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.


Arnold


In article 15-10-005, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> 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


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.