3 ms·
https://musl.libc.org/releases.html https://musl.libc.org/releases.html I maintain a large codebase, widely deployed, cross compiled to many cpu architecures t
by ghotli 3y ago
https://musl.libc.org/releases.html https://musl.libc.org/releases.html
I maintain a large codebase, widely deployed, cross compiled to many cpu architecures that's built atop musl. You're right that historically in the context of people blindly using alpine for their container base that sort of thing might be the case. The newest version of musl solves the thing you're describing and in general most of the complaints about malloc perf or otherwise have been addressed. Avoiding musl to me seems like an outdated trope, but there was a time wherein that take was valid indeed.
- NewJazz 3y agomalloc performance is still sub-par IMO. It is not nearly as terrible as it was, but scudo, memalloc, and glibc's malloc are better.
- raverbashing 3y agoYeah, and with glibc you can even LDLIBRARY an alternative glibc, not so much with musl (unless it changed recently)
- ghotli 3y agoI make statics usually so this sort of just never comes up. If I wanted another malloc it would just be linked in at compile time like the rest.