Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!brl-adm!husc6!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!bww From: bww@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Bradley White) Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd Subject: Re: ctime(3) and leap seconds :-) Keywords: ctime, leap second, epoch Message-ID: <635@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> Date: 13 Jan 88 09:09:06 GMT References: <604@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <6976@brl-smoke.ARPA> <20532@amdahl.amdahl.com> <7061@brl-smoke.ARPA> Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 14 So, it seems we are all in agreement. POSIX undoubtedly said the opposite of what it meant, and system clocks should keep ticking during leap seconds (just like our hearts). Now, "time_t" -> "struct tm" conversion routines already do different things in different timezones, so outlawing allowances for leap seconds seems indefensible. The only requirement should be that any "struct tm" -> "time_t" function make the same allowances. The remaining issue, for those who care for leap seconds, is a good implementation. Clearly something based upon adotime (ado says that ado is a trademark of something) is appropriate, although I don't think a copy of the leap second rules in every timezone file as ado earlier suggested is best; nor did this address the ??:59:60 issue. -- Bradley White +1-412-268-3060 CMU Computer Science Department 40 26'33"N 79 56'48"W