Why should I use musl over glibc?

>>61551774
Do you need a lightweight and minimal libc instead of a blazing fast one? If yes, use musl. If no, use glibc.

>>61551774
glibc is a botnet

Glibc is garbage legacy shit

>>61551795
Musl is faster in almost all cases

>>61551841
>Musl is faster in almost all cases
I seriously doubt that. AFAIK musl doesn't even do any SIMD/SSE in order to speed up things.

>2027
>not using dietlibc

>>61551862
http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html

>>61551795
Well, lightweight and minimal is always desirable, no?

Not sure really, my understanding is that glibc is rather slow and bloated (like most GNU projects end up being) and things like musl, uclibc, dietlibc are much leaner and faster which especially useful for embedded devices and servers. The added benefit they have from being leaner and simpler is that they could be more secure.

>>61551931
Edit: Here is a comparison but I'm not sure how up to date it is: http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html

>>61551915
No mention of SIMD/SSE, at least not when trying to search for it. Also no micro benchmark numbers, but interesting overview over supported features though.

>>61551928
No, you want to exploit the architecture you're running on. glibc does that very well for x86.

>>61551931
Embedded yes, servers no. See above.

gnu libc is a bloatnet

>>61551969
>>61551915
Disregard my statement about microbenchmarks, I missed the section entirely. Sorry.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-25_11-18-01.png (86KB, 799x420px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 799x420px

>>61552000
>>61551969
musl does not perform bad at all, but glibc has the benefit of being more mature I guess. I'm missing some info about the hardware they ran on though, but I guess it's fair to assume x86-64

>>61552027
And where is the code? Pretty useless without it. Oh and no msvc or bsd or embedded libs.

>>61552070
http://distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/musl/

As an end user, what kind of performance increases can I expect by switching to musl?

>>61552649
Bump. Thinking of jumping into musl, kind of nervous.

>>61552070
>And where is the code?
For the benchmarks?

It's linked to it in the page posted by >>61551915

>>61552649
I would not expect any increase, rather a decrease.

>>61552070
>bsd or embedded libs.
uclibc is an embedded lib.

BSDs usually use glibc.

>>61552649
None? Musl is compact and easy to read, but glibc has an insane amount of low-level optimizations.

>>61553734
Oh. So when will musl become a viable alternative to glibc?

>>61553672
Name a BSD that uses glibc, I'll wait.

>>61554817
It is, on embedded systems for example. Or if you don't care about that 10% performance difference and want a standard library you can actually read.

>>61551774
Static linking. Glibc cannot into it