Few questions

[kasperk81]

In Linux, musl is received as a light libc variant, and alternative to glibc. Over the years/decades, glibc has gathered bulk due to backwards compatibility support, which musl shaves off, and generally developers of musl libc make choices to keep the code size small (it's almost 1/3^rd of the size of glibc).

Given the above, I have few questions:

1. Does FreeBSD's libc also suffer with same "bulkiness" issue as glibc, such that it makes observable difference when it was replaced by musl?
2. Do you see a potential in upstreamming patches to musl?
3. Do you see a potential in proposing a change to FreeBSD to make building the OS with musl (instead of FreeBSD's in-tree libc) optional?

[kiwidoggie]

1. FreeBSD libc had issues being built outside of the source tree
2. No, most likely not in the near future
3. I don't think so, unless you have some other discussion about it.