3 ms·
Note that this comparison is really old, from mid-2014, while the tested dietlibc is from 2009 (although not much changed since).
by creshal 11y ago
Note that this comparison is really old, from mid-2014, while the tested dietlibc is from 2009 (although not much changed since).
- to3m 11y agoGood point - it should definitely be dismissed without any further explanation. What possible relevance could anything from 18 months ago have to today?
- creshal 11y agoWhat? I never even implied anything like that. It just should be taken with a grain of salt, as quite a few points will be out of date (e.g., supported features, code size, …).
- wkubiak 11y agoFrom the text: "uClibc 0.9.33.2 (Buildroot 2015.02)" In all fairness, this can't be from mid-2014 if they used a library build from 2015.
- creshal 11y agoSo why are both musl and glibc from mid/early 2014, and dietlibc from 2009? That's an awful lot of cherry-picking versions with no stated justification.
- wkubiak 11y agoI think it's because those are the freshest stable versions the author could use? uClibc 0.9.33.2 by itself was released in 2012. I guess he had a reason for using the BuildRoot 2015.2 version.