@ky0ko Fair points. Is glibc bad because of the extensions it makes to standard or something deeper? I noticed while googling that it seems to have some functionality other libc implementations don't have, which seems weird for an implementation of a standard.
@neon it has a number of nonstandard extensions, and also behavior that is incompatible with a standard libc
it is, by many accounts, badly written, bloated, and does things that make you have to target its behavior explicitly
@scarlett but it doesn't replicate the internal glibc headers that a lot of applications use even though they're not supposed to, it doesn't replicate a lot of gnu extensions
it does expect a compiler with __asm__
it does maintain a minor level of abi compatibility with glibc but all except the simplest applications will probably break if you try to drop it in place
@ky0ko Oh, that's good! When I first read about statically linking with Rust* I saw that you could statically link with musl, and wondered why that, not just your system libc. I guess that explains it!
* Well, it links rust dependencies statically by default, but like properly statically linking everything.
ｃｙｂｒｅｓｐａｃｅ: the social hub of the information superhighway
jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal