Re: tm(3) vs "double leap second"

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Sat, 22 Oct 2022 23:21:04 -0400
    From:        Jan Schaumann <jschauma%netmeister.org@localhost>
    Message-ID:  <Y1SzIN+8tYx36/gN%netmeister.org@localhost>

  | I believe the notion of tm_sec allowing for 0-61 to
  | account for a possible "double leap second" was a
  | mistake

It was indeed, somehow the notion of "possibly two leap
seconds a year" was interpreted as "possibly two leap
seconds at once".

  | I believe this should be updated, but I don't know
  | whether this is a documentation/comment fix only, or
  | if we are actually somewhere using a value of 61?

I very much doubt that anyone is (any more) assuming that
tm_sec can ever be 61, or that it ever jumps from 57 to 0
without going through (at least) 58 first.  The patches you
proposed look fine to me (even if there were some code
assuming otherwise somewhere, those changes wouldn't affect it).

kre