[tz] An outline of a possible solution for sensible leap-second support.
eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Mon Feb 16 05:07:19 UTC 2015
random832 at fastmail.us wrote:
>(extending the range of an existing sub-second field is
> worth considering in some cases, though 32-bit signed nanoseconds only
> have room for one additional second in this way.)
One additional second is all one needs, no? Two leap seconds are never inserted
adjacent to each other. So POSIX's 'struct timespec' suffices to represent leap
seconds, and there's no need for a new data type here, just new operations on
the type. You could start by adding a new clock to clock_gettime, a clock that
respects leap seconds.
More information about the tz