On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 08:26:35PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > I'm totally fine with saying that errno shouldn't be defined when building > > without errno, but all functions must continue to be defined. perror() is > > used to print an error message, it's a valid use case just as printf() and > > should remain. > > > > If we disable perror for this, then we must also disable usage of printf > > for consistency (and I don't want this either). > > Then let's also fix printf(). Benjamin, do you want to add this to your > series? It should be consitent with the perror() fallback.
Yes that would be great given that the series focuses on fixing errno usage. Thanks, Willy
