Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Advice on C libraries Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 26 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <15-10-006@comp.compilers> References: <15-10-005@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1444439529 72764 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (10 Oct 2015 01:12:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 01:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: C, library Posted-Date: 09 Oct 2015 21:12:08 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1633 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@comp.compilers>, John R. Levine 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