M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[email protected]> > James Cloos <[email protected]> writes: > : >>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck Harris <[email protected]> writes: > : > : Chuck> The message implies that linux clocks counted: > : > : Chuck> 58..59..60..00..01 > : > : Chuck> Which would not be the POSIX way. > : > : No, the linux clocks counted: > : > : 1230768021..1230768022..1230768023..1230768024..1230768025 > : > : where 1230768024 is 2009-01-01 00:00:00 UTC. > : > : What gets output by any given userland apps depends on those apps. > : > : If one uses the Olsen tz database, the right zonefiles rather than the > : posix zonefiles, and a libc such as glibc, then one will have seen the > : seconds tick off 58..59..60..00..01. > : > : But that is purely a userland issue. > : > : If one uses the (lobotomized) posix zonefiles, one will have seen the > : seconds tick off 21..22..23..24..25. > : > : (Interesting coincidence there, that 1970 through 2008 (inclusive) has a > : number of days divisible by 5. Which makes for a nice, even 1230768000 > : seconds, were there no leap seconds.) > > That doesn't match POSIX's mandated behavior... time_t % 86400 == 0 > at midnight is an invariant that's violated by the above sequence. > > Warner
Which is what my message was saying. If linux does count 58..59..60..0 instead of 58..59..59..0, then it isn't following POSIX. [I have no interest in getting into an argument over whether linux, or POSIX should count that way.] Having a message from ntp.c that says there was a leap to HH:MM:60 implies that HH:MM:60 is a valid time as far as ntp.c's author is concerned. Having used unix since edition V, I am also aware of how unix systems count off seconds since the epoch 1/1/1970. But that really is immaterial to the discussion. -Chuck Harris _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
