[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 34, Issue 8

[Magnus Danielson]

M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <4ACFF759.3090903 at rubidium.dyndns.org>

>             Magnus Danielson <magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org> writes:

> : M. Warner Losh wrote:

> : > In message: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456AFA8697A05 at EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>

> : >             Jonathan Natale <jnatale at juniper.net> writes:

> : > : AFAIK, routers also just re-sych.  The OS's are not capable of

> : > : xx:xx:60 time.  For reading router logs this is fine in most cases

> : > : which is all NTP is really for.  I don't think they simply step the

> : > : time, I am pretty sure they do tweak the freq.  I could be wrong and

> : > : I am NOT representing Juniper here, just my thoughts. :-)

> : > 

> : > FreeBSD will cope with the xx:xx:60 second correctly, assuming it is

> : > told about the leapsecond soon enough.  Not all other parts of the

> : > system can cope with the xx:xx:60, but that's a posix time_t

> : > limitation that you can't do anything about[*].

> : > 

> : > Warner

> : > 

> : > [*] The 'right' timezone files attempt to do things correctly, but in

> : > doing so they break time_t definition...

> : 

> : I assumed you meant to say that it breaks the POSIX time_t definition.

> 

> Yes.  The most current time_t definition is the one codified by POSIX.

> Older standards are fuzzier about what time_t really means.


Indeed. As there exist several time_t definitions, I wanted to make sure 
you was refering to the POSIX mapping of UTC time into time_t, which 
forms an "interesting" timescale of its own, almost but not close 
enought to UTC.

Cheers,
Magnus