On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:14:47PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > However, due to the reasons mentioned above, supporting uClibc has > proven to be more and more complicated. Therefore, at the latest > Buildroot Developers Meeting, we discussed the idea of switching to > using glibc as the default C library in Buildroot for the > architectures that glibc supports.
As maintainer of musl libc (http://www.musl-libc.org), I'd like to suggest it as an alternative to switching to glibc. Obviously sticking with uClibc as the default would probably be the least invasive for your user base, but if that turns out not to be feasible, I think musl might be a better fit for most Buildroot users. Both musl's small size and strong robustness aims are attractive from an embedded perspective. We are about to make a 1.0 release and have active development plans following 1.0 as well. musl's arch coverage is still considerably less than uClibc's or glibc's, but the amount of work needed to add a port is also much lower (less than 20 small mandatory port-specific files aside from bits headers to match kernel/ABI-specific types) and we have an active development community willing to help getting additional ports integrated upstream. Right now we have i386, x86_64, arm(32), mips(32), microblaze, and powerpc(32); I expect to also merge the in-progress superh port before the next release. Rich _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
