| Issue |
123778
|
| Summary |
I don't think this test is quite right. But since we don't have any historical practice with negative leap seconds, my reasoning is based on an assumption: the IANA db contains the earliest time after a leap second is fully inserted. I'm basing this on the fact that positive leap seconds are inserted at 11:59:60 PM on 30 June/31 December, but the db contains 12:00:00 AM on 1 July/1 January.
|
| Labels |
new issue
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
ldionne
|
I don't think this test is quite right. But since we don't have any historical practice with negative leap seconds, my reasoning is based on an assumption: the IANA db contains the earliest time after a leap second is fully inserted. I'm basing this on the fact that positive leap seconds are inserted at 11:59:60 PM on 30 June/31 December, but the db contains 12:00:00 AM on 1 July/1 January.
For a positive leap second, the `utc_time` when insertion begins is this `sys_time` plus the accumulated offset, because the insertion begins at the time that would otherwise be 12:00:00 AM on the following day. The test is correct for those cases. But negative leap seconds are different. Insertion happens at the time that would otherwise be 11:59:59 PM, i.e., one second earlier, so I think you have to subtract `1s` to get the correct transition time for negative leap seconds.
_Originally posted by @MattStephanson in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90393#discussion_r1585147783_
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
