In message: <[email protected]> Magnus Danielson <[email protected]> writes: : M. Warner Losh skrev: : > In message: <[email protected]> : > James Cloos <[email protected]> writes: : > : >>>>> "Warner" == M Warner Losh <[email protected]> writes: : > : : > : Jim> By which sequence? : > : : > : Warner> The sequence where midnight % 86400 isn't 0. : > : : > : MY appologies, but that isn't narrowing it for me. POSIX only cares : > : about POSIX midnight, not UTC midnight, so the fact that it was already : > : past PODIX midnight when the leap second and UTC midnight happened is : > : irrelevant to POSIX. : > : > posix midnight and utc midnight are the same things. You had said : > that the system time was returned as ....24 at UTC 2009-01-01 : > 00:00:00, which isn't posixly correct. : : Um... no. That's the hacked POSIX interpretation, not the POSIX standard. : : We have at least three POSIX interpretations here. : : One which has UTC rubber seconds from 1970 to 1972 and from then true SI : seconds from 1972. : One which has true SI seconds from 1970. : One which has UTC tracking in pieces and is slid "sideways" to make : midnight match UTC midnight. : : The two first ones is interpretations of POSIX over UTC variations. The : third one is a hack of POSIX to make it kind of work anyway with NTP. : Only with the third interpretation POSIX midnight and UTC midnight is : the same. : : Now, which of them is "right"?
Midnight must be xxxx00. POSIX says so explicitly because leap seconds do not exist in POSIX. The committee has issued a very explicit addendum to this effect. Which one is more desirable? Well, that's a matter of debate, but which one is POSIXly correct isn't. Warner _______________________________________________ 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.
