From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:00:56 EDT." References: <346c54679a6cdc9bb557724d8b93bbc6@quintile.net> <6e2a7a02201fcf3ea5d0d894d0d16916@ladd.quanstro.net> <20140902200400.81EAAB827@mail.bitblocks.com> <14dad84410389f1daea3b71e632cb980@ladd.quanstro.net> <20140902215053.Horde.Ajvc1qAreH0gSqu6LYJmDw6@ssl.eumx.net> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:04:43 -0700 From: Bakul Shah Message-Id: <20140902230443.0A3E9B82A@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] silly question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 15198948-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:00:56 EDT erik quanstrom wrote: > > > correct. plan 9 does not bother with leap seconds. > > > > seconds(1) "handles" leap seconds in that it will not crash > > when it encounters them -- it accepts that sometimes there > > are 61 seconds in a minute. > > i'm not sure if we're talking past each other, or making different points. > but either way, i should clarify. > > by "not handling leap seconds" i mean there is no code in ctime() to add > in leap seconds from an external source at the appropriate unix times. > so e.g. gmtime could read e.g. /lib/leapseconds and ajust seconds similar > to days (/sys/src/libc/9sys/ctime.c:137,138). I was mistaken. Turns out neither do Unix systems handle leapseconds. Now if only ITU punts on leapseconds in 2015, we can let some future generation worry about leap minutes or hours! Sorry for the noise.