News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Comparison of C/Posix standard library implementations for Linux. Parent comment

Re:Comparison of C/Posix standard library implementations fo... by wkubiak on Monday February 01, 2016 @07:30AM (#11011357)
From the text: "uClibc 0.9.33.2 (Buildroot 2015.02)"

In all fairness, this can't be from mid-2014 if they used a library build from 2015.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Comparison of C/Posix standard library implementations fo... by creshal on Monday February 01, 2016 @08:04AM (#11011484)
So why are both musl and glibc from mid/early 2014, and dietlibc from 2009? That's an awful lot of cherry-picking versions with no stated justification.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Comparison of C/Posix standard library implementations fo... by wkubiak on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:24AM (#11025731)
I think it's because those are the freshest stable versions the author could use? uClibc 0.9.33.2 by itself was released in 2012. I guess he had a reason for using the BuildRoot 2015.2 version.
[ Parent | on HN ]