What hardcore BSD developers has to say about musl (standrad C library implementation) ?

2

2600

Does anyone here use or recommend the alternative C library from musl-libc.org ?

"musl is lightweight, fast, simple, free, and strives to be correct in the sense of standards-conformance and safety."

Is that true ? Are there any drawbacks by using such library ?
 
The standard library is free and standards compliant so it's no different on two of the five points. Simple and fast would need to be looked into. Lightweight is strange because you only use the parts of the library you need.

I have been aware of musl but never tried it so I can't knock it or promote it and will just continue to use the standard library.

EDIT:
for linux
Click to expand...
Well screw that.
 
I am not a hardcore BSD developer or ever a C developer but I do suppose musl is mostly a non non-sense Linux answer to the glibc monstrously.

[EDIT]

Given the fact musl is used by the seL4 people, I think this is safe to assume that is a reliable libc (at least their version).
 
I believe Alpine Linux uses it. The only drawbacks I have seen is when running proprietary things with it such as the Nvidia blob driver or vmware.

I like the idea of it but for a server or development workstation it is possibly a little too "non-standard". Any issues you encounter will be your own fault basically ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top