This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
- From: tb at becket dot net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at frob dot com>, Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>, Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 09 Jan 2002 17:59:31 -0800
- Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201091752110.1109-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
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