← Back to context

Comment by riedel

2 days ago

I could not even find a mention what platform it supports. There is a Linux example on the bottom. Have never seem a libc implementation that does not even mention for which platforms it is meant.

7 comments

riedel

Reply
dboon  1 day ago

It...is not a libc implementation. That's an impressive level of misunderstanding!

  • vetrom  19 minutes ago

    The title says 'standard library'. Are you saying that, in the context of C, that it is an error to take that to mean an implementation of libc?

    Yes, I know the author's writeup then goes on to say that it is not a libc with a pile of questionable justfication. This is a custom runtime, in a single header no less, which is admittedly impressive, especially considering it provides runtime and thread safety primitives. This does not rise to the level of claiming the idea of a 'standard libarary' though, IMO. In that, I think the author misses the point.

forrestthewoods  2 days ago

> sp.h is written in C99, and it compiles against any compiler and libc imaginable. It works on Linux, on Windows, on macOS. It works under a WASM host. It works in the browser. It works with MSVC, and MinGW, it works with or without libc, or with weird ones like Cosmopolitan. It works with the big compilers and it works with TCC.

bsder  2 days ago

You could, of course, spend 30 seconds look at the code on Github which you would have to do if you were interested in using it anyway?

  TRIPLES = \
    x86_64-linux-none x86_64-linux-gnu x86_64-linux-musl \
    aarch64-linux-none aarch64-linux-gnu aarch64-linux-musl \
    aarch64-macos \
    x86_64-windows-gnu \
    wasm32-freestanding wasm32-wasi

Or you could actually try the compliance suite on an architecture and report back to us if it works?

  • imtringued  1 day ago

    You've rejected a user. You can't complain that he has no interest in your project at that point. The bridge is burned.

    • bsder  1 day ago

      I don't know how the author would feel. But, honestly, for a libc replacement, I'd personally be okay with that ...

      If you can't be bothered to look at a Makefile (or ask an AI to look at the Makefile), you are almost certain to be more trouble than any possible benefit you will bring.

      Especially in the realm of open source, I'm becoming increasingly comfortable with "If you can't be bothered to jump through even the most minimal of hoops, please get lost."

      1 reply →