On Mon, 2006-Jan-02 22:10:46 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: >The biggest problem with compiling leap seconds into this is that you >can only be sure that leap seconds are right for at most 6 months. >Sure, you can make statistical statements about how likely a leap >second is or isn't going to be, but this non-determinism is a big >problem. There's no way you can deploy a system and have a sane leap >second table without a connection to the outside world... The Islamic calendar is based on lunar _sightings_: If it's cloudy, the calendar shifts a day. This wreaks even more havoc than the odd leap-second and many Islamic countries have therefore switched to using almanac based dates. Actually, I'd suggest that you can't build a system that keeps any sort of accurate time without a connection to the outside world or a quite substantial budget. If you assume a leap second every 5 years then the difference between UTC and TAI is about 6e-9 - being able to tell the difference requires an atomic clock - which isn't common in embedded systems. >Leap seconds are hard and I hate them. Which of the competing alternatives would you prefer? -- Peter JeremyReceived on Tue Jan 03 2006 - 05:18:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:50 UTC