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

[Jan Schaumann <jschauma%netmeister.org@localhost>]

Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:

> 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).

Cool, thanks - just committed.

-Jan