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/
