Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 17:02:42 +0100 From: Brian Peregrine <peregrinebrian@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Advocating musl to the chromium OS developers I started a thread at the Chromium OS google groups (called Chromium OS: compile using musl as default ): https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-os-dev/iiDRh42EmvE I think that it would benefit the Chromium OS, but they need to be convinced more and want more proof (see reply by Kevin). I pointed them to the musl vs glibc comparison table (http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html ) but Mike said: "the bloat comparison on the musl site is largely irrelevant to us. it's interesting to embedded people, and to people making comparison charts, but we could not care less about things like "Smallest static C program" or "Static hello (using printf)". we don't use static programs, nor will we ever have any program *not* using a large set of C library functionality. plus, as Julius points out, the performance comparison on that site already shows that glibc is generally better than musl. The idea why it would be important to get them switched to musl is because Google is behind Chromium OS and they also develop the Chromium web browser (and the Chromium browser is in Chromium too I believe). So, if Chromium OS changes to musl, they'll need to provide far better support for musl in chromium browser too. Also, having google developers help out on musl support in the other programs used by Chromium OS is always a big benefit too. So, if anyone has any good arguments, go ahead and post them at the google groups thread (you however do need a google account to post).
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.