Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #1632 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-07 22:13 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-11-24 15:53 -0800 |
| Articles | 4 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.compilers
Advice on C libraries "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-07 22:13 -0400
Re: Advice on C libraries arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2015-10-08 06:11 +0000
Re: Advice on C libraries George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2015-10-09 23:51 -0400
Re: Advice on C libraries "lpsantil@gmail.com" <lpsantil@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 15:53 -0800
| From | "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 22:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Advice on C libraries |
| Message-ID | <15-10-005@comp.compilers> |
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? Here's a not necessarily unbiased comparison of four open source C libraries: http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html R's, John
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 06:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <15-10-006@comp.compilers> |
| In reply to | #1632 |
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 <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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 23:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <15-10-007@comp.compilers> |
| In reply to | #1632 |
Hi John, On 7 Oct 2015 22:13:17 -0400, "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. My only (maybe) useful thought would be to repost your question in comp.arch.embedded, where it's more common for people to explore alternative libraries. George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "lpsantil@gmail.com" <lpsantil@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 15:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15-11-004@comp.compilers> |
| In reply to | #1632 |
There's also newlib libc [0] that RedHat built specifically for embedding. There's also a porting tutorial at the OSDev wiki [1]. OSDev wiki also lists PDclib. [0] https://sourceware.org/newlib/ [1] http://wiki.osdev.org/Porting_Newlib [2] http://pdclib.e43.eu/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.compilers
csiph-web