This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002


Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:

> Bzzt, no. glibc _is_ slower than other libraries, and the reason for that
> is that people haven't cared. They've thought like you do, apparently.

Um, where exactly can I read about these comparisons?  How do we know
that glibc is "slower than other libraries"?  AFAIK the only libc
available on GNU/Linux systems is glibc, and nobody's compared it on
other systems.  

> And if glibc developers don't start caring, somebody smaller and faster
> and more aggressive will come along. Because you ARE wrong.

Um, ok.  Do you have papers or other evidence I can read about?

Thomas


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]