On 11/Jul/2022 21:10, Gregory Nutt wrote: <...> > MUSL supports only Linux. Hopefully, the MUSL OS interface is > well modularized to support use of a different OS.
Musl is well-structured, ports aren't difficult. <...> > But there would be many, many smaller issues of compatibility with > header files, data structures, etc. This effort would be complex, > invasive, and probably more work than anyone really would want to > commit to doing. > He said it would be like “a death from a thousand cuts.” It depends if such incompatibilities are regarded as bugs in NuttX; when it comes to musl, it tries to be standards-compliant, it won't accomodate for non-standard expectations in NuttX. > If there is missing functionality in the NuttX LibC, most people > would opt to extend the NuttX LibC, not port a different Libc. OTOH, sharing code with other projects is generally a good thing, specially with quality-conscious projects. A libc is far more taxing than a kernel to develop and test in that it must be compliant with a large body of standards to aid portability.
