Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: GNU C Library 2.16 Brings Many Features (GLIBC)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,673

    Default GNU C Library 2.16 Brings Many Features (GLIBC)

    Phoronix: GNU C Library 2.16 Brings Many Features (GLIBC)

    Version 2.16 of glibc, the GNU C Library, was released on Saturday afternoon. This update to the de facto C library for GNU/Linux systems brings many new features. There's x32 and ISO C11 support along with performance optimizations...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEzMDg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Ubuntu uses eglibc instead, so I wonder when these features make it into eglibc..

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Ubuntu uses eglibc instead, so I wonder when these features make it into eglibc..
    eglibc tries to stay pretty close to glibc so it should not take long.

    personally, I am now more curious about alternative libc-based distros. Musl libc seems to be moving along nicely and I think there is a gentoo variant based on uClibc.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    personally, I am now more curious about alternative libc-based distros. Musl libc seems to be moving along nicely and I think there is a gentoo variant based on uClibc.
    Thanks, I've used other libc's before but I hadn't heard of musl.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    I am now more curious about alternative libc-based distros. Musl libc seems to be moving along nicely and I think there is a gentoo variant based on uClibc.
    Do you have any insight on the respective strengths of these c libs (other than most likely being smaller and having less baggage) ? It's always been a bit of a jungle for me thus resulting in me staying on the beaten path, maybe I'm missing out on something.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Do you have any insight on the respective strengths of these c libs (other than most likely being smaller and having less baggage) ? It's always been a bit of a jungle for me thus resulting in me staying on the beaten path, maybe I'm missing out on something.
    There is a comparison (with potential bias) table at:

    http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html

    For static linking, I think musl libc got lots of good things going for it. Especially that it is permissively licensed while still being far more complete than the Android bionic libc, so one does not have to worry about license conflicts in static binaries.
    For the base system, having static linking is pretty good (that is how the musl libc "sabotage linux" does it).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Thanks for the info!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Ubuntu uses eglibc instead, so I wonder when these features make it into eglibc..
    I think that with glibc having adopted its new "development model", the need for the eglibc fork itself is going away.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    306

    Default

    A(nother?) musl user here...
    Most alternate libc versions are smaller/lighter than glibc.
    musl right now (0.9.2) has partial LSB ABI support, which is a subset of glibc ABI. Most other alternate libcs don't have an officially stable ABI.
    Most users build musl with gcc, but I'm aware of folks using pcc, tcc, and Clang; in fact, ellcc is currently migrating from "libecc" (based on netbsd libc) to musl, and I heard from Rich Pennigton (a week or two ago, on #musl) that a musl-based release should happen in a month or so.
    Not sure how close to the timeline it will happen, but it "should be soon".

    There's also a musl Gentoo port/overlay that's been started (mentioned on the musl mailinglist), though AFAICT it may not be usable or public yet.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,338

    Default

    Another release without cortex-strings integrated. Seriously Ubuntu?


    Re musl - it does cut the bloat, but it also cuts any performance optimizations (no ASM in musl, IIRC) as well as many used functions and behaviors that aren't quite standard, but are supported by glibc and used in the real world.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •