• mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    glibc is great, but holy shit the source code is obscured into oblivion, so hard to understand, with hardcoded optimizations, and compiler optimizations. I understand how difficult is to find vulnerabilities. A bit sad that the only C lib truely free software is so hard to actually read its code or even contribute to it.

    • leopold@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      For what it’s worth, glibc is very much performance-critical, so this shouldn’t be a surprise. Any possible optimization is worth it.

      There are a ton of free software libc implementations outside of glibc. I think most implementations of libc are free software at this point. There’s Bionic, the BSD libcs, musl, the Haiku libc, the OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana libc, Newlib, the ToaruOS libc, the SerenityOS libc and a bunch more. Pretty sure Wine/ReactOS also have free implementations of the Windows libc.

    • azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Eventually it’ll be easier to create a compatible drop-in replacement than maintain the decades old code, if it isn’t already

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Unlikely, unless you drop backwards compatibility for undefined behaviour. Unless you write a complete specification on it, you’ll end up either breaking old stuff, or slowly rebuilding the same problems.