From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Nov 23 13:18:40 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02264
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:18:40 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from iworks.InterWorks.org (deischen@iworks.interworks.org [128.255.18.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02254
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:18:36 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org)
Received: (from deischen@localhost) by iworks.InterWorks.org (8.7.5/) id PAA23932 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:20:55 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199711232120.PAA23932@iworks.InterWorks.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:20:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: pthread_cond_timedwait returning wrong error?
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Is EAGAIN the correct error for a timeout from a
pthread_cond_timedwait() call?  I would think that
ETIMEDOUT would be more appropriate.

I got hung up on this in trying to upgrade the
port of GNAT.  It seems that all the other GNAT
targets rely on ETIMEDOUT being returned from
a timeout in pthread_cond_timedwait().  Namely,
OpenVMS, Solaris, RTEMS, Linux, and DEC Unix.

Should I submit a PR with patch to correct it?

Dan Eischen
deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org