Delivered-To: listarch-cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com X-Authentication-Warning: modi.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:00:40 -0600 (CST) From: Mumit Khan To: "Brimhall, GeoffreyX L" cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: newlib and glibc compatibility In-Reply-To: <7FD5C79AD680D211AC4100A0C96B501C78F638@ORSMSX49> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Brimhall, GeoffreyX L wrote: > How close are newlib and glibc ? Is there any chance that at some point > newlib will implement glibc and so be able to use it's headers ? Ah, the annual question ;-) Newlib and glibc are *very* different. As for Cygwin using glibc instead of newlib, it's not going to happen. Search the mailing list for more info. > This would help porting linux code based on glibc. What is "Linux code based on glibc"? It's either POSIX (portable) or not (non-portable); if it's portable, it's usually a simple port, other than possibly working around newlib bugs and implementation limitations, and various platform specific issues (file system layout, authentication methods, so forth and so on). People who write code that depends on glibc either know what they're doing or/and deserve what they get. Instead of trying to get glibc to work with Cygwin or vice-versa, a much more productive approach is to contribute to fill in the missing pieces in newlib. Regards, Mumit