Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/26/06:09:19
On Apr 26 11:14, Christian Franke wrote:
> Peter Ekberg wrote:
>
> > If you thought about all that, maybe you also thought about leap
> seconds?
> > Isn't it valid to have 60 in the seconds field when a leap second is
> added?
>
> Yes, this should be valid.
> But maketime() does not provide portable support for it, because it
> relies on gmtime/localtime of the platform's libc.
> On Cygwin, maketime() does not accept 2005-12-31 23:59:60 UTC as a valid
> time.
I don't see what this has to do with gmtime/localtime since both
functions create a struct tm from a time_t, not the other way around.
I just tested your testcase with patch-2.5.9 on Linux and the same
effect happens, so it's apparently not a Cygwin specific problem.
Would you mind to discuss this on bug-patch AT gnu DOT org? As far
as my opinion counts, I'd think that aligning its behaviour with tar
would be a good thing. But the core developers might have an entirely
different opinion...
Thanks,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -