At 3:28 PM +0200 10/10/09, Magnus Danielson wrote:
M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <4acff759.3090...@rubidium.dyndns.org>
Magnus Danielson <mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org> writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message:
<13205c286662de4387d9af3ac30ef456afa8697...@embx01-wf.jnpr.net>
: > Jonathan Natale <jnat...@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 enough to UTC.
By definition, POSIX Time is closer to TAI than to UTC, but in
practice time in POSIX-compliant computers is usually NTP steered to
approximate UTC (most common) or to GPS System Time (where
leapseconds cannot be tolerated).
Joe Gwinn
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
