Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:07:45 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Inconsistancy between mktime and system time accross leapsecond Message-ID: <17141.24289.89443.373347@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050806.182832.69698258.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <17140.60527.658336.649822@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <20050806.130024.75615324.imp@bsdimp.com> <17141.2993.393364.510305@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <20050806.182832.69698258.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:28:32 -0600 (MDT), "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> said: > So are we therefore precluded from fixing this obvious bug? This is > stupid and wrong. Committee membership is open to all. The 1003.1 standard is up for review next year; you are welcome to try to persuade the sponsors (IEEE, ISO, Open Group) that the current situation is unacceptable. I did my part in 2001. The reason this discussion always gets ratholed is that you'll find all sorts of people with other agendas piling on to get the time interfaces "fixed" for their particular concerns. Never mind that the domain of time_t has no logical connection to the leap-second botch; there are people who will insist that the latter cannot be fixed unless the committee simultaneously "fixes" the Y2038 problem. Other people will want to get reentrant timezone handling. Thankfully, Bernstein is not on the committee (that I've seen) so at least there's nobody insisting that the only possible correct approach is to import libtai. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17141.24289.89443.373347>