srch

The default stack size for new threads on glibc is determined based on the resource limit governing the main thread’s stack (RLIMIT_STACK). It generally ends up being 2-10 MB. musl provides a default thread stack size of 128k (80k prior to 1.1.21).

uClibc. • eglibc. – Now merged into glibc. • Dietlibc. • Klibc. • Musl. • bionic ... Size can be really small at the expense of functionality. • Eglibc.

Performance just isn't a reason to choose between musl/glibc. The difference isn't big enough to significantly matter (in any benchmarks I've seen to date).

However musl is much smaller in size and is written with security conscious mind. When vulnerability expose the C library it expose the entire ...

The first eye-popping thing was the massive amount of futex waits on musl (right) compared to Glibc (left), which clearly signs towards ...

musl VS glibc Compare musl vs glibc and see what are their differences. musl. Unofficial mirror of etalabs musl repository. Updated daily. (by bminor) Suggest topics. ... "The Linux kernel imposes no fixed limit, but the glibc implementation makes fd_set a fixed-size type, with FD_SETSIZE defined as 1024" Everyone using select, ...

musl is a C standard library intended for operating systems based on the Linux kernel, ... There is partial ABI compatibility with the part of glibc required by ...

Performance comparison, musl, uClibc, dietlibc, glibc ... I've used size(1) instead of file size since static library files are roughly 80% ELF header ...

musl is more lightweight,neat and well-thoughy with considerably less code comes also much more security, which is the main and probably the only (still surely relevant) musl pro; musl vs glibc performance benchs are often contradictory. musl would perform better only on limited specs/embedded. 7. level 2. steve-ddit.

glibc can be faster than musl (glibc has some inline assembly here and there to improve performance), but musl has a (arguably) cleaner codebase ...

musl is faster, it is rare but you can still get errors on some programs. personally i use musl for servers and glibc for desktop (able to run 32-bit programs, etc) 3. level 2. Unwashed_villager. · 2y. AFAIK musl is not faster, just not so resource heavy as glibc.

... 512 MB RAM) MUSL or GLIBC, not taking into account size of resulting binaries, what would you choose? I've seen comparison…

Mar 15, 2018 · Glibc is obviously faster. Musl is not meant to be fast. This is most likely going to boil down to arch, compiler and application. My personal guess would be that musl is going to be faster on architectures with small cache (mips, arm) in general while x86/amd64 probably benefits from glibc.

"The Linux kernel imposes no fixed limit, but the glibc implementation makes fd_set a fixed-size type, with FD_SETSIZE defined as 1024" Everyone using select, with very few exceptions, is using glibc. That limitation does appear to exist in glibc if you look at the source code.

musl is more lightweight,neat and well-thoughy with considerably less code comes also much more security, which is the main and probably the only (still surely relevant) musl pro; musl vs glibc performance benchs are often contradictory. musl would perform better only on limited specs/embedded. 7. level 2. steve-ddit.

musl is faster, it is rare but you can still get errors on some programs. personally i use musl for servers and glibc for desktop (able to run 32-bit programs, etc) 3. level 2. Unwashed_villager. · 2y. AFAIK musl is not faster, just not so resource heavy as glibc.

on: Dietlibc – a Libc optimized for small size ... Also note that openrisc has been mostly superceded by risc-v, which afaik glibc and musl both support; ...