On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 2:53 AM Stefan Puiu <stefan.puiu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Not sure what value "libc, -lc" to the man pages. I think having a > standardized section for functions that require libraries other than > libc is fine, so you remember when you need -lm or -lrt (although IIRC > recently a few of these were folded in libc, at least for glibc). But > -lc feels kind of redundant. Does that mean you need to add -lc in > your Makefile? Some people might interpret it as such. Isn't it covered by the > I think no library section = no special library required might be clearer. > > Also, on FreeBSD it's quite obvious you're talking about THE library. > But on Linux, you have glibc, musl libc, diet libc... Is the plan to > document requirements for all of these? E.g link with -lm on musl > libc, no special flags on glibc..? I think, the split is codified in the standards[1][2][3][4][5] (so, -lm/-lrt are expected to be supported by the compiler, per my understanding, and providing the necessary -l* option will always work, because it's codified in C standard, contrary to not providing one) and the fact that glibc provides libm/librt symbols in -lc is more akin to a bit of convenience (for application or glibc developers, not sure which ones), and not something one should rely upon. [1] https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-PDA/LSB-PDA/libc.html [2] https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-PDA/LSB-PDA/libm.html [3] https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-PDA/LSB-PDA/libpthread.html [4] https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-PDA/LSB-PDA/libdl.html [5] https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-PDA/LSB-PDA/librt.html -- Eugene Syromyatnikov mailto:evgsyr@xxxxxxxxx xmpp:esyr@jabber.{ru|org}
