From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9dFu-0004pw-Fp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:03:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 162701C0CC for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:03:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.nippynetworks.com (mail1.nippynetworks.com [91.220.24.129]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E33D1C004 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mail1.nippynetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.nippynetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F2934037B for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:52:20 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nippynetworks.com Received: from mail1.nippynetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1.nippynetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id KmEh8NgU-ipE for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:52:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from Ed-Wildgooses-MacBook-Pro.local (office.nippynetworks.com [212.69.49.94]) (Authenticated sender: edward@wildgooses.com) by mail1.nippynetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7199F34036E for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:52:20 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4DA44B04.1080102@wildgooses.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:52:20 +0100 From: Ed W User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-embedded] gcc-4.6 / bionic References: <201104101239.07511.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20110412135220033 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 3228319fc1a2d690e1fbab6dfe90f518 On 11/04/2011 23:52, Arkadi Shishlov wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:11:04 +0300, Christopher Friedt > wrote: >> Is anyone interested in having a look yet? I guess I could post it on >> gitorious as a layman overlay. > > What is the (long-term) technical advantage to use bionic, compared to > glibc and uclibc? > I would like to hear some answers also. Google's top hit is: http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2008/11/six-million-dollar-libc.html That's some years out of date and can be summarised as: advantage is a bsd licence versus an lgpl licence. Also some speedup due to dropping support for c++ exceptions. Also in 2008 there was no TLS in uclibc (seems quite mature at least in current uclibc git) This does raise a good point - can "we" really work on getting uclibc next release out and stabilised as quickly as possible? It's a massive improvement over prior releases and even the unreleased git should become everyone's version of choice right now (for a certain definition of everyone). On x86 a very large proportion of software now compiles without obvious problems I'm using a trivial bump of the in tree ebuild to grab the current git uclibc and very pleased with it Cheers Ed W