> LOL. Do you really want to depend on a libc whose author thinks this way? Who removes functionality that the kernel provides because in his opinion the kernel

> LOL. Do you really want to depend on a libc whose author thinks this way? Who removes functionality that the kernel provides because in his opinion the kernel's design is wrong? musl can't remove the functionality provided by the kernel. You're still free to use syscall(3) or otherwise invoke the kernel routine yourself. May I assume you abstained from using glibc prior to 2.30 on account of glibc not providing a wrapper for the gettid syscall? More apropos: do you dislike how glibc and musl both change the behavior of Linux setuid syscall to make it standards-conformant--process-global instead of thread-local? Should they simply provide the Linux semantics rather than the standard semantics? Has the kernel no culpability here for not providing the necessary interfaces for implementing the standard-compliant semantics?