
Comparison of C/Posix standard library implementations for Linux - ingve
http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html
======
creshal
Note that this comparison is really old, from mid-2014, while the tested
dietlibc is from 2009 (although not much changed since).

~~~
to3m
Good point - it should definitely be dismissed without any further
explanation. What possible relevance could anything from 18 months ago have to
today?

~~~
creshal
What? I never even implied anything like that. It just should be taken with a
grain of salt, as quite a few points will be out of date (e.g., supported
features, code size, …).

------
zmyrgel
Nice comparison. It would be interesting to see how different BSD's libc
compares to these.

------
DHowett
The footnote indicator † is not resolved in this document, leaving us to
speculate as to what the author could possibly have meant by "2.0M†'.

~~~
boulos
I'm guessing it's the inclusion of iconv:

> size totals for glibc include the size of iconv modules, roughly 5M, in the
> “Complete .so set” figure. These are essential to providing certain
> functionality, and should be installed whether static or dynamic linking is
> being used.

