Re: [musl] libc comparison: https://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 02:06:00PM +0100, Aaron Peter Bachmann wrote:
> Hello Rich!
> You once made a libc comparison: https://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html
> I like the comparison. It makes clear what is compared and what
> versions are used. This should go without saying, but pure
> propaganda comparisons are surprisingly and annoyingly common.
> Unfortunately, the comparison is a bit outdated. I would highly
> appreciate an update. Likely, others share my desire.

Yes, it's really outdated. Unfotunately I don't really have the setup
(or interest to spend a lot of effort making it) for maintaining
quantitative comparisons, and updating just the qualitative ones mixed
with very old quantitative ones seems wrong. Maybe I could drop the
quantitative ones (and leave just a link to an old version with them),
or maybe someone interested in keeping and updating them could make an
automated tool to measure at least some of them. (The performance ones
will be very machine-specific, but the memory usage ones are mostly
universal and could be meaningfully measured on different machines.)

Rich