On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:07:02PM +0200, Mattias Andrée wrote: > I mean that if you always use same libc you only have to read it once, > but if every problem have its own you have to read all of them. I do > not think it changes it sucklessness. I just wasn't sure whether the > reason was to have a single compilation unit or if there was some > other point to it (as both was listed as futures). > > Although I do not expect you to do so. I would break out the libc to > a standalone project or, depending on how well it would work (and if > most of it could be done with a script), fork musl-libc and make it > a header-only (+crt) library.
"No libc" does not mean I have a massive and huge klugde like all libcs are to replace it. It is near a non sense to compare the ultra thin layer I use with a massive real libc (even the "light" ones are still massive compared to). There are several orders of magnitude in between. -- Sylvain
