Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, Magnus Danielson writes: > >>> 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. >> It is valid UTC time, not valid POSIX time, which are two different things. > > Well, it is a valid POSIX time, but it means a second later than > desired in this case, because the 60 is taken as 60 seconds, and > folded into a minute-roll-over. > >>> 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. > > No, that is actually the crux of the matter...
Ok, that is news to me. Are you saying that (pulling a number out of the air) time_t = 21120123 could be followed by 21120123 on a year where we added a leap second? It is my understanding that it cannot. I believe that time_t must increment by one as each second passes, and must contain the number of seconds that have passed since the unix epoch on 1/1/1970... without regard for leap seconds. I was of the understanding that the problem was in how the UTC time was calculated from time_t, and the converse. Do tell! -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.
