From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Nov 23 22:39:24 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08778
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:39:24 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from ns3.harborcom.net (ns3.harborcom.net [206.158.4.7])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA08772
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:39:21 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bradley@harborcom.net)
Received: from bradley by ns3.harborcom.net with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1)
	id 0xZsAv-0005Xy-00; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:39:17 -0500
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:39:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org>
X-Sender: bradley@ns3.harborcom.net
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: pthread_cond_timedwait returning wrong error?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971123195951.29611D-100000@current1.whistle.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971124013350.20807A-100000@ns3.harborcom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Julian Elischer wrote:

> don't forget 2.2.x
> (it has basically the same code)

> > > Is EAGAIN the correct error for a timeout from a
> > > pthread_cond_timedwait() call?  I would think that
> > > ETIMEDOUT would be more appropriate.
> > 
> > According to my 1996 edition of ANSI/IEEE std 1003.1, you are correct --
> > ETIMEDOUT should be returned.  I've committed a fix for this into
> > -current.

While we are talking about threads, any comments on PR-4376?

Bradley