On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:07:02PM +0200, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> I mean that if you always use same libc you only have to read it once,
> but if every problem have its own you have to read all of them. I do
> not think it changes it sucklessness. I just wasn't sure whether the
> reason was to have a single compilation unit or if there was some
> other point to it (as both was listed as futures).
>
> Although I do not expect you to do so. I would break out the libc to
> a standalone project or, depending on how well it would work (and if
> most of it could be done with a script), fork musl-libc and make it
> a header-only (+crt) library.
"No libc" does not mean I have a massive and huge klugde like all libcs are to
replace it. It is near a non sense to compare the ultra thin layer I use with a
massive real libc (even the "light" ones are still massive compared to). There
are several orders of magnitude in between.
--
Sylvain
Received on Tue Sep 10 2019 - 23:24:32 CEST