Re: [LEAPSECS] Consensus rather than compromise

From: Peter Bunclark <psb_at_ast.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:28:43 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <Pine.GSO.4.58.0508301611190.3371_at_cass18>, Peter Bunclark writes:
>
> >I would have thought that part of the answer to the difficulty in
> >implementation and testing would be to use an open-source library of tried
> >and tested algorithms. I don't quite understand why software engineers
> >seem to feel the need to write new leap-second handling code every time
> >they invent a new gadget.
>
> The vast majority of software engineers do use standard code, they
> use their operating systems libraries, this makes them seemingly
> leap second compliant.
>
> "Seemingly" here covers that they are only compliant in all the
> seconds that are not leapseconds or seconds right before leap
> seconds.
>
> The POSIX definition makes it impossible to correctly handle leap
> seconds with any complying implementation of the standard, and
> therefore applications which needs to be *truly* leapsecond compliant,
> cannot use the standard libraries.
>
So we need just one other, published, open, correctly implemented, and
tested library and all your problems go away.

Peter.
Received on Tue Aug 30 2005 - 08:29:33 PDT