Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!amdahl!chongo
From: chongo@amdahl.amdahl.com (Landon Curt Noll)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: ctime(3) and leap seconds :-(
Keywords: ctime, leap second, epoch
Message-ID: <20700@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Date: 12 Jan 88 19:58:25 GMT
References: <604@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <6976@brl-smoke.ARPA> <20532@amdahl.amdahl.com> <175@wundt.psy.vu.nl> <1964@rti.UUCP> <7040@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: chongo@amdahl.amdahl.com (Landon Curt Noll)
Organization: Amdahl Coup, UTS Products Hen House
Lines: 17

In article <7040@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
 >The most useful thing for ctime() to report would be something
 >very close to the wall-clock time at which the corresponding
 >time() function was invoked.  Whether the number of seconds since
 >some artifical epoch is exact or not is of no consequence to most
 >non-astronomical applications.

I think some people are mis-understanding the point:

POSIX does not say that a conforming machine MUST have the correct time!
What it does say is that given some specific time, it MUST produce the 
same timestamp.

chongo <> /\oo/\
-- 
[views above shouldn't be viewed as Amdahl views, or as views from Amdahl, or
 as Amdahl views views, or as views by Mr. Amdahl, or as views from his house]