Re: [LEAPSECS] The real problem with leap seconds

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:30:29 +0100

In message <>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> So the standards crew, POSIX, LSB or whoever would have to come up
>> with a new data type for holding timestamps,
>We already have one: struct tm.

Doesn't work.

Struct tm is defined such that if you do
        tm.tm_sec += 75
the "right" thing will happen.

That is why, as Warner has documented that the leapsecond has a time_t
one less than what you get out of timegm(23:59:60), the "60" second
count is normalized to 00:00:00.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Mon Jan 09 2006 - 03:40:48 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT