> > > > previously i proposed that any code that measures a fail-timeout make > > that timeout 1000ms longer whenever t % 86400 is near zero > > I assume that you mean near 0 or near 86400 since % is unsigned. >
yes code example posted previously: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/2011-October/thread.html#3295 > > this pattern would duck most bugs > > With timeouts, yes. With other things, not so much... > as a thought-experiment, i conjecture that it would have prevented all the system failures reported in the media in the last few leap seconds am i close? > > these bogus advertisements seem like another good reason to implement > > this > > It says a lot about the robustness of leap seconds... > yep -paul _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
