A comparison of dietlibc, uclibc, musl, and glibc, by the author of musl: http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html
- musl: 4 releases so far in 2019, 2 in 2018, 3 in 2017[1]
- uClibc: No releases since 2012[2]
- uClibc-ng: 2 releases in 2019, 3 in 2018, 6 in 2017[3]
- dietlibc: only 1 release since 2013[4]
[1] https://www.musl-libc.org/releases/
Out of interest, what are some new things (those bringing real performance gain) from the last 6 years which a standard library needs to adapt to actively?
Edit: also note that OP made this pointed on purpose, the last release is from 2018, one year ago, not 2013...
the compiler will almost never automatically generate this code.
musl-1.1.24.tar.gz (sig) - October 13, 2019
musl-1.1.23.tar.gz (sig) - July 16, 2019
musl-1.1.22.tar.gz (sig) - April 9, 2019
musl-1.1.21.tar.gz (sig) - January 21, 2019
you missed the first entry (20180924).
> Another factor to consider is release cadence
It's questionable that "more releases" == "better". Sometimes software is (ideally) just done (except for security issues). I use a lot of software that has no significant changes since decades. Regarding a libc-replacement I couldn't name a single important thing for the last years.
But of course, no release could also be a bad sign, like beeing abandoned or that is has just no users (testers).
* Supporting new syscalls, such as getrandom(), or extra options on existing syscalls (e.g., socket options).
* Support for libc-components of new hardware versions, such as the register state information that you get on signals.
* Supporting new versions of C, such as C11.
* Improving performance of threading and memory allocation, among other things.
* Updating Unicode tables for locale information.
Also note that openrisc has been mostly superceded by risc-v, which afaik glibc and musl both support; don't know about the other libcs.
musl 1.1.5
uClibc 0.9.33.2 (Buildroot 2015.02)
dietlibc 0.32
glibc 2.19