Re: Draft: musl promo materials

[orc <orc@sibserver.ru>]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:16:09 +0200
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:

> * Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> [2012-07-13 14:12:54 -0400]:
> > Consistent quality and implementation behavior from tiny embedded
> > systems to full servers.
> > 
> > Minimal machine-specific code, meaning less chance of breakage on
> > minority architectures and better success with "write once run
> > everywhere" development.
> > 
> > Realtime-quality robustness. No unnecessary dynamic allocation. No
> > unrecoverable late failures. No lazy binding or lazy allocation.
> > 
> > MIT license.
> > 
> > Full math library with a focus on correctness. Exact and
> > correctly-rounded conversion between binary floating point and
> > decimal strings.
> > 
> > Reentrancy, thread-safety, and async-signal safety well beyond the
> > requirements of POSIX. Even snprintf and dprintf are fully reentrant
> > and async-signal-safe.
> > 
> > Highly resource-efficient POSIX threads implementation, making
> > multi-threaded application design viable even for memory-constrained
> > systems.
> 
> i'd somehow add that both static and dynamic linking is supported
> properly and without bloat as musl is better at it than glibc
> 
> i like musl's clean code, clean header files (no gcc specific mess)
> and simple build system (even for cross compilation)
> again something that glibc is lacking

Agree with that. musl allowed me implement a variant of skein crypt()
for example, and much more things than mess called glibc. It's source
code is easy to understand and good start point to learn how libc works.

> 
> and there could be a hint that things like security, worst cases
> (stack usage, algorithm complexity) and conformance are taken
> seriously