tz behavior difference TZif vs. TZif2
eggert at CS.UCLA.EDU
Sun Mar 19 03:09:07 UTC 2006
Robbin Kawabata <Robbin.Kawabata at eng.sun.com> writes:
> old TZif vs. new TZif2 Indian/Cocos:
> < Indian/Cocos Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 UTC = Sat Dec 14 03:15:52 1901 CCT isdst=0
> > Indian/Cocos Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 UTC = Sat Dec 14 03:13:32 1901 LMT isdst=0
This appears to be a bug in the TZif2 zic. The time stamp in question should
be CCT, not LMT, as Indian/Cocos switched from LMT to CCT in 1900.
Looking at the other troublesome entries, they all seem to have the
property that their last transition preceded the time stamp that is
2**31 seconds before the epoch (namely, Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 UTC).
Most likely the new zic is mishandling this case.
More information about the tz