On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:52:52 +0100 Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > musl is the way to go. >
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:51:20 +0000 sin <s...@2f30.org> wrote: > > Personally, I'd go with musl. What is your plan at the moment? > Thanks for the quick response! I planned on going for musl, too. It seems to be the best option, especially because we're planning to link stuff statically anyway. Thus, there's no need to look out for a standard library which also supports C++. To avoid confusion in the future, we should think about updating the wiki accordingly. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
