Clp VS liblinux

If you want to compile a large fraction of C/C++ code, just take a distro and rebuild it from scratch--Debian actually does this reasonably frequently. All of the distros have to somehow solve the problem of figuring out how to compile and install everything they package, although some are better at letting you change the build environment for testing than others. (From what I understand, Debian and Nix are the best bets here.)

But what that doesn't solve is making sure that the resulting builds actually works. Cargo, for Rust, makes running some form of tests relatively easy, and Rust is new enough that virtually every published package is going to contain some amount of unit tests. But for random open-source packages? Not really. Pick a random numerics library--for something like an linear programming solver, this is the most comprehensive automated test suite I've seen: https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/tree/master/test

Actually it looks like it is licensed under the EPL, not the GPL: https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/blob/master/LICENSE

> libc isn't really getting in the way here.

For the standard set of system calls, the libc is pretty great. For Linux-specific features, it could take years for glibc to gain support. Perhaps it's gotten better since then, perhaps it still takes years. I don't know.

Years ago I read about the tale of the getrandom system call and the quest to get glibc to support it:

https://lwn.net/Articles/711013/

A kernel hacker wrote in an email:

> maybe the kernel developers should support a libinux.a library that would allow us to bypass glibc when they are being non-helpful

That made a lot of sense to me. I took that concept and kind of ran with it. Started a liblinux project, essentially a libc with nothing but the thinnest possible system call wrappers. Researched quite a bit about glibc's attitude towards Linux to justify it:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux#why

Eventually I discovered Linux was already doing the same thing with their own nolibc.h file which they were already using in their own tools. It was a single file back then, by now it's become a sprawling directory full of code:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...

Even asked Greg Kroah-Hartman on reddit about it once:

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...

Since the kernel was developing their own awesome headers, I decided to drop liblinux and start lone instead. :)

It gives you access to 100% of Linux's system calls. It eliminates a lot of global state. It gets rid of a lot of legacy libc crap.

Years ago I wrote a fairly referenced rationale in my liblinux project:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/master/READM...

> Now, do I think it would make total sense for syscall wrappers and NSS to be split into their own libs (or dbus interfaces maybe) with stable ABIs to enable other libc's, absolutely!

I worked on this a few years ago: liblinux.

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux

I'm not developing it anymore though because I found out the Linux kernel itself has a superior nolibc library:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...

It used to be a single header but it looks like they've recently organized it into a proper project!

I wonder if it will become some kind of official kernel library at some point. I asked Greg Kroah-Hartman about this and he mentioned there was once a klibc:

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...

> This is something the BSD's got absolutely right.

BSDs, every other operating system really, force us to use the bundled C libraries and the C ABI. I think Linux's approach is better. It has a language-agnostic system call binary interface: it's just a simple calling convention and the system call instruction.

The right place for system call support is the compiler. We should have system_call keywords that cause it to emit code in the aforementioned calling convention. With this single keyword, it's possible to do program literally anything on Linux. Wrappers for every specific system call should be part of every language's standard library with language-specific types and semantics.

I'm not using this stuff professionally, it's just my own home lab's virtual machines with little services implemented as freestanding C programs. Not doing anything fancy right now, much of it was just to see if I could do it.

I've seen other people commenting here on HN saying they're using the same approach so it's defenitely not my invention.

I published some of my work in the form of a liblinux that I use to make system calls:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux

I'm not developing it anymore though because I found out the kernel itself has a nolibc library:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...

It used to be a single header but it looks like they've organized it into a proper project.

That's awesome. I didn't know about rwildcard until now. Is it part of GMSL? I searched for rwildcard on gmsl.sourceforge.io but didn't find it.

I think my function is needlessly complicated compared to rwildcard. Here's my code:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/modular-buil...

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/modular-buil...

The file? and directory? functions were inspired by GMSL.

I wrote a general recursion function. It takes a function to apply to lists and a function to compute whether an element is a base case.

The recursive file system traversal function applies a directory globbing function to the list of paths and has file? as base case.

The find function filters out any items not matching a given predicate function. It was my intention to provide predicates like C_file? and header_file? but I stopped developing that project before that happened.

I think rwildcard is probably simpler and more efficient!