On Apr 15, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Steve Allen <s...@ucolick.org> wrote: > On Tue 2014-04-15T09:42:20 -0400, Joseph Gwinn hath writ: >> This first negative leap second may end civilization - essentially no >> leap-second handling code is really ready for a step backwards. > > I think not. I think many of the computing systems which fail for > positive leaps are ready for negative leaps. > > A negative leap is saying "I missed experiencing some time". Any time > sharing system should find it routine that a process was asleep while > some time elapsed, and then it wakes up later.
Given the Linux exemplar of what can happen when there’s positive leap seconds that software has dealt with many times before, I suspect the capacity to foul up the implementation is not bounded by what’s reasonable in a naive implementation. This is effectively untested code, and untested code tends to be broken code. That said, most naive implementations that don’t try anything too much fancier than ts->second++ should fair fairly well. Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
