Dev.SN

musl libc Reaches 1.0 Milestone

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday March 20 2014, @09:33AM   
from the ilibc-ulibc-we-all-C-for-libc dept.

dalias writes

"The musl libc project has released version 1.0, the result of three years of development and testing. Musl is a lightweight, fast, simple, MIT-licensed, correctness-oriented alternative to the GNU C library (glibc), uClibc, or Android's Bionic. At this point musl provides all mandatory C99 and POSIX interfaces (plus a lot of widely-used extensions), and well over 5000 packages are known to build successfully against musl.

Several options are available for trying musl. Compiler toolchains are available from the musl-cross project, and several new musl-based Linux distributions are already available (Sabotage and Snowflake, among others). Some well-established distributions including OpenWRT and Gentoo are in the process of adding musl-based variants, and others (Aboriginal, Alpine, Bedrock, Dragora) are adopting musl as their default libc."

• neato neato (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @09:39AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @09:39AM (#18879)

  So a sorta ground up re-write of libc. Any benchmarks yet? How goes the fuzzing (as the existing libc libraries have years of security fixes)?

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		+2
  Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=4
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		2

• Re:neato (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @10:41AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @10:41AM (#18903)

  The TFS on Slashdot is a bit more informative and provides a link to your question: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/03/20/1336223/g nu-c-library-alternative-musl-libc-hits-10-milesto ne [slashdot.org]

  Editors: You beat the Slashdot editors by 33 mins, but their TFS is actually better. Don't let this happen again!

  Parent