Comparison of C/Posix standard library implementations for Linux

My own perf comparison: when I switched from Fil-C running on my system’s libc (recent glibc) for yololand to my own build of musl, I got a 1-2% perf regression. My best guess is that it’s because glibc’s memcpy/memmove/memset are better. Couldn’t have been the allocator since Fil-C’s runtime has its own allocator.

The section on architecture support of dietlibc is too optimistic, IMHO. I stumbled upon quite a few function, esp. floating-point-related functions, that simply aren't implemented on x86_64 while they're available while they're available on x86. But then one needs to understand the background of how and why dietlibc came to be: its original author used to work for a German company developing digital TV set-top boxes and receivers, based on Linux and technologies like DirectFB, so obviously supporting their…

Note that this comparison is really old, from mid-2014, while the tested dietlibc is from 2009 (although not much changed since).