From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Trying to use AUTHOR_DATE Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:26:14 -0700 Message-ID: <4276A906.2040403@zytor.com> References: <42730061.5010106@zytor.com> <20050430125333.2bd81b18.froese@gmx.de> <1114859594.24014.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050430144936.6b05cc90.froese@gmx.de> <1114865964.24014.77.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Woodhouse , Edgar Toernig , Linus Torvalds , "Luck, Tony" , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 03 00:25:57 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DSjHi-0003Tu-GJ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 03 May 2005 00:21:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261182AbVEBW1O (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 18:27:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261184AbVEBW1O (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 18:27:14 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([209.128.68.124]:49850 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261182AbVEBW1M (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 18:27:12 -0400 Received: from [172.27.0.18] (c-67-169-23-106.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.23.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j42MQE6l015468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 May 2005 15:26:15 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.2 (X11/20050324) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Krzysztof Halasa In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.84, clamav-milter version 0.84e on localhost X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=ham version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > David Woodhouse writes: > >>During a leap second, won't tm_sec be 60? > > You could rather have two 59th seconds. Or the "seconds" could be, say, > 0.1% longer for 1000 s. Depends on synchronization mechanism. > > I think 60th second could only be possible with leap-seconds aware > things (NTP, GPS, reference radio clocks etc.). > It is, but you can't assume you don't have that. Either way, you just treat it the same as the following second. -hpa