Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] tools/nolibc/stdio: remove perror if NOLIBC_IGNORE_ERRNO is set

[Willy Tarreau]

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