On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:52:52 +0100
Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> musl is the way to go.
>
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:51:20 +0000
sin <sin_AT_2f30.org> wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd go with musl. What is your plan at the moment?
>
Thanks for the quick response!
I planned on going for musl, too. It seems to be the best option,
especially because we're planning to link stuff statically anyway.
Thus, there's no need to look out for a standard library which also
supports C++.
To avoid confusion in the future, we should think about updating the
wiki accordingly.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Fri Dec 20 2013 - 11:05:00 CET