[klodolph]

I don’t think there’s any reason to be worried about a “bloated” library if you understand the components of that library. I’ve used Newlib in embedded projects without malloc and it’s fine. It’s easier and faster to check what parts of Newlib you are pulling in than to try and reimplement it on your own.

It’s a trap that people fall into to think that it’s easy to roll your own. It depends on what, exactly, you are rolling, what resources you have, etc. Maybe I need a couple math functions, a decent implementation of memset/memcpy/etc, and having the C library at my disposal gives me those things.

The idea that you throw out Newlib just because one function pulled in malloc seems unjustifiable to me.

On the other hand, I think it’s quite normal to want your own PRNG.

[toast0]

I don't know about newlib's library or code structure, but I've got a project I'm working on where I don't want a whole libc, but it's pretty easy to pull in bits and pieces of the FreeBSD libc; when I come across something else I need, I just add the C file it's in to my Makefile and that's usually enough. For the things that are self-contained, I don't need to build the environment libc expects, and if I try to include something that's not self-contained, the linker will yell about the missing symbols.

[klodolph]

The main use case for Newlib is embedded systems, and Newlib supports more architectures than FreeBSD does. Newlib also includes a few assembly routines for functions like memcpy and memset.

[toast0]

Sure, my point is, the question isn't use newlib or write your own, you can probably pick pieces out of it, rather than using the whole thing, by avoiding their build system and just using their source. I just don't know if the code (or license) is structured for that.

[extheat]

If rand() gives you trouble who knows what else in the C library may give you more trouble. It’s not that hard to copy paste or even write your own implementation for basic parts of the C API, minus the allocation related things. For me I’ve found GitHub Copilot great for filling in basic stubs for C stdlib APIs.

[klodolph]

> If rand() gives you trouble who knows what else in the C library may give you more trouble.

Ooh, I can answer this one! It turns out that I know what else in the C library can give you trouble. Newlib is open-source. For embedded projects, I find myself reading the source code to Newlib, and sometimes looking at the disassembly to double-check what version of a function I’m getting.

If I had gotten burned by having malloc included when I didn’t wanted (never happened to me personally), I would consider running "ar d" to remove it from the copy of the library I’m using. It’s pretty easy to modify static libraries.

> For me I’ve found GitHub Copilot great for filling in basic stubs for C stdlib APIs.

I might want a decent implementation of snprintf, might want some decent implementation of memcpy/memset/memmove. I’ve implemented all of these myself, but it’s a pain, and I generally would rather grab Newlib rather than trust Copilot.

[monocasa]

I've been a fan of importing pdclib functions piece by piece as I need chunks of libc in deeply embedded situations. Simple enough that I can audit everything for the semantics of each functions dependencies without any rigamore, but without the sirens of yak shaving singing to me like when I get the urge to write libc stuff myself in most cases. Although the CC0 license is a bit unfortunate in some cases for source code.

[adhesive_wombat]

> Although the CC0 license is a bit unfortunate in some cases for source code.

CC0 isn't a viral license, you have literally no obligations if you use it: no attribution, no license compatibility worries, no relicensing issues, not even a need to mention it at all.

[monocasa]

The issues are deeper than a question of virality.

> Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?

> We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.

> Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...

[detaro]

read further, its not counting CC0 as a CC license in that context:

> Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry

following that link: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC...

> May I apply CC0 to computer software? If so, is there a recommended implementation?

> Yes, CC0 is suitable for dedicating your copyright and related rights in computer software to the public domain, to the fullest extent possible under law. Unlike CC licenses, which should not be used for software, CC0 is compatible with many software licenses, including the GPL. However, CC0 has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative and does not license or otherwise affect any patent rights you may have.

[monocasa]

The other issues still exist; not everything is GPLed.

Particularly the license has been an issue getting through legal in older companies where it might not be whitelisted. Particularly with their FAQ still saying not to use it for software.

[johnny22]

picolibc seems nice enough