3 ms·
Yeah, a lot of good programmers have alternatives to libc, either for reasons of history or taste. I was just reading DJB's daemontools (less than 6K LOC, very
by chubot 13y ago
Yeah, a lot of good programmers have alternatives to libc, either for reasons of history or taste.
I was just reading DJB's daemontools (less than 6K LOC, very tidy!), and he doesn't use libc. Actually his code has been collected in libdjb, which seems quite nice:
http://www.fefe.de/djb/ http://www.fefe.de/djb/
And also the Plan 9 / Go guys don't use ANSI libc as far as I remember.
Those are two examples of people who don't even use the ANSI libc interface. But there are plenty of people who don't use GNU libc, and use uclibc or various other source-compatible alternatives. I think Debian switched to eglibc awhile ago.
- rat87 13y agoI'm pretty sure eglibc(Embedded GLIBC) is basically a patchset for glibc for certain distros(especially debian and derivatives) because they disagreed with the maintainer especially over ARM support.
- burntsushi 13y agoJust FYI, I believe that by default, binaries compiled with the standard Go toolchain do link against your system's libc (which is probably GNU libc on Linux). However, I believe that can be disabled by compiling the Go toolchain with `CGO_ENABLED=0` set. But you might lose some functionality.[1] [1] - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-nuts/H-NTwhQVp-8/i5vhUB5dZ5QJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-nuts/H-NTwhQVp-...
- chubot 13y agoSo I'm actually talking about what the Go compilers themselves use for libc, not Go programs. From what I can tell it is: http://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/include/libc.h http://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/include/libc.h Which is definitely not ANSI libc. Go programmers won't care about this, because it's an implementation detail, but we're talking about reading source code.
- burntsushi 13y agoAh! Mea culpa. I completely misunderstood your initial comment then. You're absolutely right.