On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <p06240801ca9937bef3c3@[192.168.1.101]>, Joe Gwinn writes: >> At 5:20 PM +0000 9/16/11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>> Actually, I don't think it is, because it's not UTC for a lot >>> more time that the leap-second. POSIX time is UTC execept >>> for during leap-seconds. >> >> POSIX time as defined in the standard is *not* UTC. > > No, but the second they use is "nominally equal to an International > System (SI) second in duration." so any rubber-second implementation > which has rubber seconds stretching beyond the actual leap-second > is not POSIX/ISO-C compliant.
Wouldn't that make adjtime() non-conforming? Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
