[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:47:26 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries?
* Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@...ma.in> [2013-04-24 07:48:52 -0400]:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:18:43PM +0200, Daniel Cegie??ka wrote:
> >
> > btw. has anyone used go with musl?
> >
>
> Go ships its own libc, which I'm fairly certain it depends on. It's
> also not suitable as a system programming language and they dropped that
> claim from their propaganda some time ago.
>
go has its own independent world (own toolchain, syscall wrappers,
runtime, calling convention, stack management etc) but it can interact
with libc through cgo
so the question might be if anyone has tried cgo with musl
and i guess nobody tried but it should work since cgo does
not make much assumptions about the c runtime
go is special in this respect, most other language runtime
implementations build on top of libc so the interaction
between c and said language is less trivial
(there are some caveats in go as well: it does not call
__libc_start_main on startup nor exit on exit so eg atexit
handlers wont get called)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
