Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM's Clang Begins Better Supporting Musl Libc

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LLVM's Clang Begins Better Supporting Musl Libc

    Phoronix: LLVM's Clang Begins Better Supporting Musl Libc

    Patches are landing in LLVM Clang to improve the compiler's support for musl libc as an alternative to glibc on Linux-based systems...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    this C standard library aims to be clean, lightweight, and robust
    it's written in rust ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by elldekaa View Post

      it's written in rust ?
      It's currently being ported ))))

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by elldekaa View Post

        it's written in rust ?
        nice troll detected

        must resist...

        no, dont answer!..

        okay enough its written in C obviously

        Comment


        • #5
          A small project that supports C11 threads, while major ones don't. I'm looking at you glibc.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by davidbepo View Post
            okay enough its written in C obviously
            Not necessarily.
            A Lib-C is the library *into which* programs written in C calls (it contains all the various standard functions of C language like printf).
            The library could be written in any language that happens to be callable from C.
            Nowadays, it's very often written itself in C too. But that hasn't always been the case.

            A long time ago various older C-library tended to have a lot of parts written in lower-level language like assembly.
            (e.g.: the C library comming with Turbo C / Borland C++ and whose source code was optionally available had parts either written in assembly, or using a large dose of in-line assembly).


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DrYak View Post

              Not necessarily.
              A Lib-C is the library *into which* programs written in C calls (it contains all the various standard functions of C language like printf).
              The library could be written in any language that happens to be callable from C.
              Nowadays, it's very often written itself in C too. But that hasn't always been the case.

              A long time ago various older C-library tended to have a lot of parts written in lower-level language like assembly.
              (e.g.: the C library comming with Turbo C / Borland C++ and whose source code was optionally available had parts either written in assembly, or using a large dose of in-line assembly).

              And Microsoft's version of the C Runtime Library is obviously written in C++.......

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                ... A long time ago various older C-library tended to have a lot of parts written in lower-level language like assembly. ...
                I remember the Zortech C and C++ compiler.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                  A long time ago various older C-library tended to have a lot of parts written in lower-level language like assembly.
                  For performance-critical libraries it's normal to find some in-line assembly, as more often than not it does provide significant performance benefits for some computations. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/li...trs/index.html

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    MIT license. No thanks.

                    Soon this will be MIT/Linux.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X