On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:19:27 -0400, Art Celestini wrote: >I don't know about any clock simulators, Ed, but I went and found the code >that was involved and it was the CONVTOD macro that accepted a maximum date >of September 17, 2042. Ed Jaffe pointed out that the hardware does not yet >support higher dates, but I might argue that the software (CONVTOD) still >could, at least when using the STCKE/ETOD format. > Could. But how much foresight did systems show in anticipating Y2K? Would you expect preparation for Y2.042K 35 years in advance? And do we know how the hardware will employ the higher bits in the future?
Of course, it's pretty hard (but not impossible) to verify the hardware limitation without waiting until 2042 to see whether it carries into the next bit. Hardware available at that time probably will. >To support retention periods beyond what CONVTOD would allow, I had to write >my own code which was based, somewhat, on the calendar conversion work of >Peter Baum, which is documented at http://vsg.cape.com/~pbaum/index.htm. >However, I only had to be accurate to a few minutes, so I didn't try to >include support for leap seconds beyond 2042. > Ummm. There's no way as of this writing that you can correctly account for leap seconds on or beyond January 31, 2008. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
