> When describing the C standard library, the only reasonable interpretation of "nonstandard" is that it does not adhere to standard C No, that is your interpr

> When describing the C standard library, the only reasonable interpretation of "nonstandard" is that it does not adhere to standard C No, that is your interpretation, and one that, so far as I can tell from all of the responses in this thread, you are alone in believing. > There are no counter-examples anyone has been able to provide from any corpus. * https://elinux.org/images/1/15/Anatomy_of_Cross-Compilation_Toolchains.pdf https://elinux.org/images/1/15/Anatomy_of_Cross-Compilation_... 2016, see page 14 "de facto standard of Linux C libraries" * https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3417 https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3417 (June 1999) -- "Linux has now standardized on the GNU C library (glibc) as the common implementation for future Linux systems." * https://www.reddit.com/r/C_Programming/comments/9g6531/where_is_the_c_repository_on_github/ https://www.reddit.com/r/C_Programming/comments/9g6531/where... "For the standard library, uCLibC and muSL are the two lightweight (and thus likely easier to understand) libraries. GLibC ("libc") is more or less the de-facto standard C library for all non-windows (and even some windows) development." * https://man.archlinux.org/man/glibc.7 https://man.archlinux.org/man/glibc.7 -- "For a while, Linux libc was the standard C library in many Linux distributions."