What C standard library implementation do you use?

I use musl libc.
http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html

Muscle libc.

>>2

How do you say musl?
It’s pronounced the same as the English words “mussel” or “muscle”.
musl is small like one but powerful like the other.

-- http://www.musl-libc.org/faq.html

pdclib

i read it as in "musli", the people that use it probably eat musli.

btw my openwrt thing is uC but my cross compiler setup is using mulsi so I have to statically link that.. which doubles the size of the executable - isn't it great that there's so many different libcs?

The lack of modularity in the original libc design is a terrible legacy. A
Almost 50 years now and there's still no standard way to link only the features you need, or replace ones whose implementation is inadequate.
Rtures

>>7
Start from scratch. It's the only way. Build directly above the system calls.

>>8
If you are working with a full OS with system calls I'm honestly not sure it's worth it to care much about libc bloat, precisely because you can just use the former to bypass the most braindamaged parts of libc (diverse insanities in glibc notwithstanding).

The monolithic nature of libc is felt most acutely in freestanding applications. There is a lot of embedded code shipping with custom garbage implementations of things like memset, memcmp, sprintf, etc. because it is easier to reinvent the wheel badly than to deal with the headache of picking apart the existing libraries.

http://fasmlib.x86asm.net/

_{(stopping the dubsfaggot from dubsbumping)}