Why should I use musl over glibc?

Why should I use musl over glibc?

Other urls found in this thread:

etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html
distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/musl/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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

glibc is a botnet

Glibc is garbage legacy shit

Musl is faster in almost all cases

>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

etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html

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.

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

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.

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

Embedded yes, servers no. See above.

gnu libc is a bloatnet

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

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

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

distfiles.gentoo.org/experimental/amd64/musl/

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

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

>And where is the code?
For the benchmarks?

It's linked to it in the page posted by I would not expect any increase, rather a decrease.

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

BSDs usually use glibc.

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

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

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

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.

Static linking. Glibc cannot into it