- tz - lists.iana.org

Ballot #1 -- results
by seismo!nbires!vianet!devine March 27, 1987

March 27, 1987

Ballot # 1 -- Results # votes ------- 1. Fate of external variables "daylight", "timezone", and "tzname[]" 4 | a. Don't put in standard and discourage use. 2 | b. Don't put in standard and allow implementation-optional use. 2 | c. Place in standard as currently defined in SVID. 2 | d. Place in standard but with different or expanded definitions. OVERALL: Replies for the first round of issues took longer than I anticipated. Also, I am breaking one of my rules: the results will not be piggybacked on a following ballot. I would guess that everyone was looking at the larger picture than just this issue, that is, this issue will fall out of the complete design. The actual count depends on how I read the emphasis of the explanatory text. This ballot might be reissued later when other agreements have been reached. Ballot 2 will be sent out tomorrow night (gotta go home now!) Bob Devine ============================= VOTES ======================================== Bob Devine--------------- Choose 'a'. But I am anticipating how I will vote on "struct tm". The future of the two are intertwined. If can't modify tm, change to d. ------------------------- Arthur Olson------------- Any of the above outcomes are acceptable to me. My favorite with regard to daylight and timezone: a My favorite with regard to tzname: d ------------------------- Chris Torek-------------- b. it should be noted that 4.3BSD does not match SysV, so mandating SVID breaks existing code, and is insufficent ------------------------- dreamit!jjw-------------- My vote > d. Place in standard but with different or expanded definitions. I would like to see a minor extension of the SVID: Make "daylight" an index into "tzname" and allow tzname to be more than 2 elements long. This would allow an easy pickup of the appropriate name and would also allow for those few cases where there are more than one type of daylight savings, e.g "double daylight time". ------------------------- Dennis Mumaugh----------- Vote: d Current definition in SVID is chauvinistic and USA oriented. It assumes that DST is always one hour offset from standard time and that it is advanced. Also one alternate time zone name and one alternate time zone offset. Daylight needs to be changed in meaning, timezone needs to be long timezone[MAXTZ]; offset is derived by timezone[daylight]; and tzname needs to be char *tzname[MAXTZ]; Thus header is #define MAXTZ 10 /* maximum possible changes in Time Rules per year */ time_t timezone[MAXTZ] /* offset from GMT for each Time Rule */ char *tzname[MAXTZ]; /* name of each Rule */ long daylight; /* 0 <= daylight < MAXTZ */ ------------------------- Guy Harris--------------- I vote for a. - Don't put in standard and discourage use. Implementations can provide them if they want, so a. doesn't disallow implementation-optional use. I prefer a. to b. and c. because, as they stand, they may not be able to describe all the wrinkles people can add to their DST rules, and so I'd prefer to discourage them. I prefer a. to d. because 1) I prefer not to use global variables if at all possible and 2) with something like "timelocal" or "mktime", and the Elz-style fields added to "struct tm", it should not be necessary for anybody to need direct access to things like "daylight", "timezone", etc., and the internal data structures used by those routines should be hidden. ------------------------- Mark Horton-------------- Either c or d is OK with me; first choice I guess is c unless a better idea appears. I think it's important to have the conventions for finding out the time zone as part of the standard - I have lots of unportable code because it isn't. ------------------------- Geoff Kuenning----------- I vote (c). If they aren't in the standard, it will break a lot of existing code when manufacturers drop them. I don't like it, but we shouldn't break existing code just because it's ugly. ------------------------- Ron Tolley--------------- I find it difficult to vote on this issue before some other issues have been resolved. Therefore, I will vote conditionally: If the tm structure is changed to provide 1) the difference from GMT in seconds and 2) pointer to a string which contains the time zone name, then vote (a), otherwise vote (c). In either case daylight should not be included in the standard. ------------------------- Shane P. McCarron-------- My response to this question would be b. We have done this with a number of other issues - where the wishes of the committee conflict with reality. I think that this is something that is so in place that we cannot simply write it off. It is interesting to note that the only place I find a reference to timezone in the X3 document is in section 4.12, where it says "The local time zone and Daylight Savings Time are implementation-defined." POSIX has stated (at the December meeting) that we will bow to X3 and X/OPEN for specifics about the timezone stuff. This looks like the answer right here. -------------------------

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!hplabs!felix!peregrine.peregrine.com!mike March 26, 1987

March 26, 1987

How about having an epoch_t date type which is the number of epochs since a "super-epoch" the advantage of this is that there would be on unique encoding for each date/time. This would aid in both comparison and conversion of times. Any comments?

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!hplabs!hpfcla!hpfclj!hpfcdg!rgt March 24, 1987

March 24, 1987

>Here's a wild idea: >If the two high order bits of a time_t are 11,... At this point, I think we should acknowledge that computers are at as level of sophistication that does not require such an approach to the problem. (However, I would not be opposed some type of Pascal variant record formulation which does the same thing.) Please see my proposal within the last week of defining a parallel date_t signed long integer which would be days (rather than seconds) in the UN*X epoch. (The parallel request is that time_t be signed also.) Using -2147483648 to +2147483647 as the bounds of a 32-bit signed long integer I compute that it would span around 5.8 million years either side of Jan 1, 1970. A date_t and time_t pair of signed long integers could be used together to give a meridian day for any interesting epoch and a time within the epoch. The assumed meridian (for existing applications) would be Jan 1, 1970. > Mark Ron Tolley

1 0

Re: extending the time range
by seismo!sun!guy March 22, 1987

March 22, 1987

I tend to agree with Chris. None of the proposals for changing the type of "time_t" seem to me to stand a chance, given all the old UNIX software out there that has an incompatible notion of what a "time_t" is. Changing "time_t" to something other than an integral type that holds the number of seconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00 GMT would break lots of programs - programs written to obey the rules, not just programs that "cheat" in some way.

1 0

AT&T clock
by seismo!cbpavo.MIS.OH.ATT.COM!mark March 22, 1987

March 22, 1987

I am unaware of any master clock in AT&T used for sync. I do know that it's quite common for the clock in each central office to run at a significantly different rate. The symptom of this is that when you dial 1200 baud from one CO to another, you get a burst of noise on a regular basis - the frequency depends on how close the clocks are. Each time it slips one full tick, there's a phase shift, and with 212 protocol a phase shift turns into a garble. The problem occurs with the newer ESS switches. Mark

1 0

Re: extending the time range
by Chris Torek March 22, 1987

March 22, 1987

All of the proposals I have seen have `RETROFIT' stamped upon them in garish glowing ink. None seem very pretty. Instead of a retrofit, it seems to me one should define a new type, at least 64 bits wide, measured perhaps in microseconds. localtime &c should be renamed, and changed work on these new time values; compability routines would transform old `time_t's to new values, and then return the value returned by the new routines. Chris

1 0

interesting clock sync facts
by seismo!nbires!vianet!devine March 22, 1987

March 22, 1987

To change the topic from the "time_t doesn't work for everything" series of messages here is a note on about synchronizing clocks. And about the limitations of time_t, it is something we can live with. Any extensions should be extensions and not modification to time_t. Too breakable. This has nothing at all to do with Posix, but, I thought that this group might like to hear about it. Ignore if you want. If the wording seems strange at times, bear with it. This was written in a stream of consciousness mode. Note that there are many interesting algorithms described in the OS literature about clock synchronization. Dave Mills has been playing in the real world (TCP/IP connected machines) on how to synchronize clocks. He found that human error accounts for a lot of the problem (as is: "ahhh, was that supposed to be 'AM' or 'PM'?"). ---- Suppose you have N clocks that you would like to synchronize. How would you do it? The answer is "it depends". That is, it depends on how much money you want to spend and how closely synchronized you want the clocks to be. You can see that if you only want to spend one postage stamp, the best you can achieve is +/- several days (the time it takes the mailperson to deliver the letter containing a timestamp). If you cough up some bucks for two modems, you can do better. Etc. What do I mean by synchronization? The best explanation that I've come up with is: consider how the Air Force's precision flying team puts on a show. What matters to them is, first, how tight the formation is, and second, where the planes are with respect to some ground-based marker. Translating that example into clocks shows that clocks can be very close to each other (== synchronized) but still give the incorrect time (!= universal time). Sometimes synchronization is more important than correctness (distributed databases that use timestamps are an example). To get synchronization of clocks AND correctness calls for two things. A mutually agreed upon reference time source supplies the correct time. A convergence algorithm used between clocks supplies the synchronization. Here's a list of time sources that I've heard of: 0. Set clocks at "factory" I include this for completeness. Perhaps the atomic clocks are set this way. I suspect some clocks in satellites are set this way. 1. The electrical "power grid" This is the familiar 60 Hz (or 50 Hz) AC electric line. One could devise a simple counter of the frequency so that all clocks would always be in step with each other. Unfortunately there are several problems. The first is how to initially synchronize the clocks. Also, there are several (5?) different grids in the 48-state area of the US that are not in sync with each other. Plus, each power-grid master clock is only consistent when averaged over the entire day. When peak demands occur, you aren't getting the full 60 Hz per second that you would expect. I've heard that by about 6pm, the grid is lagging by up to 10 seconds. However that lost time is made up while (most) people sleep so that the alarm clock is correct at 8am. [as an aside: leave work early tomorrow and if anyone asks, just give them the above reason :-)] 2. Phone system Each line used by for phone traffic has some timing-dependencies. Major trunk lines have to synchronize. I don't know the details of how the clocks are set. I vaguely remember something about a master clock for AT'n'T located in Indiana (Illinois?) that serves as the reference clock for the entire network. Anyone know more? Problems with this is that the clock is not reachable by users not in the phone company for free (maybe one could lease a T-1 channel and count bits or watch for the 193'rd etc.). 3. Solar based I've read where early clocks were synchronized to noon by someone who watched an instrument's scale for the instant that the sun be at the highest point in the sky. A tiny filament in the instrument served as the focal point for a slit of sunlight, the instrument could only be tilted north and south so that the seasonal tilt was adjusted for. Problems are that it is tedious and labor-intensive. How to set up the solar spotting tube sounds pretty tricky to me. 4. Universal time This is the collection of atomic clocks (over 100 of 'em) around the world that maintain the time. What's good is that is set up, working, and is correct. Problem is dissemination. Unless you are close to an actual clock, there is some delay. However, it is on the order of milliseconds, not too bad. Expenses are getting a receiver for the signal. In the US, there are several frequencies for WWV. Worldwide, one can use a satellite's broadcast if you are lucky enough to be in its "footprint". The GOES satellite serves North America and some of Pan America. I don't know if there is an equivalent satellite for Europe, Africa or Asia. Using a satellite means you have to pop for a dish antenna. 5. Neutron star A spinning neutron star is very periodic. Some are more than others. One neutron star has been watched for over a decade. During that time, it has shown remarkable consistency -- on par with an atomic clock. I'd have to rummage through my notes to get its designation. Problems: besides buying and installing a radio telescope it is very easy... OK, we got a source of time. Now how do we set the clocks? A convergence algorithm can be structured one of two basic ways. The simplest is in a master/multiple-slaves organization. The harder to implement way is in a distributed fashion where each clock shares its "time" with all other clocks. One has to worry about faults (and Byzantine faults, ie, clocks that are "broken" and give different readings depending on who asks it for the time), and compensating for delay in messages between clocks. But the second way leads to some nice advantages for a data network (deadlock detection is easier, can timestamp things for local and remote use, ...) Another problem is related to how clocks move -- forward. Suppose you are going to reset your clock to a new value of time. What happens if that new value is less than the current reading of a clock? Strange things may happen if you set the clock back! Two ways around this are (1) to "stop" the clock until the clock's reading equals the new time and (2) to run the clock slower for a while. On my old pendulum clock at home, I can shorten or lengthen the pendulum if the clock is running slow or fast, respectively. One can't really change the rate of a digital clock. So, one uses the first method. For an OS that updates its clock by seeing interrupts, if the clock is too far ahead some of the updates can be skipped. If the clock is behind, double up some of the clock updates. Careful consideration needs to be done to see if anything (accounting for one!) breaks. Best to do it when no one is using the machine (but then if updates are scheduled for at night and the machine's clock is 12 hours off, strange things will happen). Berkeley's TEMPO time synchronization protocol changed how the clock is set to be better than one second resolution. [If I could find the paper now, I could tell you more. It was in a Usenix proceedings of a couple years ago.] Bob Devine

1 0

RE: Are these limitations...
by seismo!sun!guy March 21, 1987

March 21, 1987

Would the STRUCTURE of the tm structure have to be changed to accommodate the solar time/lunar calendar or the oriental calendaring systems? It depends on whether you want to use "struct tm" to hold calendar dates in other systems or not. It may be possible (e.g. with a scheme like the one used to represent calculations in "terminfo" strings) to write formatting strings that will convert values from a "struct tm" into dates in various Oriental calendars. Are there weekdays in oriental? We may need to indicate the epoch somewhere (for the reign of the Emporer or whatever). >From what I saw on my trip to Japan, it seems that the only difference between Japanese and Western dates/times is that the year is given as years since the year in which the current emperor took the throne, along with the name of his reign. I.e., "now" is (modulo some transposition of fields) Sunday, 22 Mar, Showa 62 (if I remember correctly, last year was Showa 61), 6:08 AM. (Courtesy of "TZ=Japan /usr/src/bin/date" - thanks, Arthur!) Hebrew used the fall of Adam, Is the past tense deliberate here? What calendar is currently used in Israel? However the Oriental calendar uses assension of the emperor. Or "Oriental calendars use". The Japanese calendar does so; what does the current Chinese calendar do? (I think the Soviets changed to the Gregorian calendar after the revolution; what happened post-1945 in China?) That means things change every so often. Yup. This means you can't guarantee that you can convert times in the future correctly. I'm not sure how the Japanese talk about the year 2087; "Showa 162" would sound a bit presumptuous to me. They may just punt and use the Gregorian calendar here.

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!cbpavo.MIS.OH.ATT.COM!mark March 21, 1987

March 21, 1987

> 2) Provide a general-purpose time value manipulation package > for the benefit of applications that have to deal with > arbitrary dates and times. > > In fact, you may even be able to write the latter package in some > language available on lots of machines (C, Fortran, whatever), and > decouple it from the system entirely. Unfortunately, such a library has to know all the time zone rules, which means it has to redo all the stuff ctime does. It also has to know the local conventions for figuring out what time zone you're in, which means it won't be portable. The bulk of this package would be very similar to ctime.c or ADO's package. I would prefer to see either an upward compatible extension or else a dual interface to the same code. Mark

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!cbpavo.MIS.OH.ATT.COM!mark March 21, 1987

March 21, 1987

Here's a wild idea: If the two high order bits of a time_t are 11, the rest of the bits are taken as a number of days since some early epoch, perhaps 1858 or something in that general ballpark. (1900 isn't quite early enough for our application.) Actually, a quick calculation shows that this allows for nearly 3 million years, so we could easily adopt the year 0 AD as the epoch. The disadvantage to this is that time_t is no longer a simple arithmetic type, although any application that knows it's dealing with timestamps can still assume it is. Only the canned routines like ctime need to know about it. Another disadvantage is that time_t used as a timestamp now only extends to about 2071. By using more than 2 bits as a flag, this could be extended. For example, if the flag were that all 8 high bits are 11111111, it covers 46,000 years, still plenty. It could even be a signed quantity, allowing years from 23,000 BC to 23,000 AD. This only loses 194 days from the end of the range in 2106. Mark

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!sun!guy March 20, 1987

March 20, 1987

Given that some people want a facility in some system library to manipulate dates prior to 1902, why not: 1) Leave the UNIX time manipulation routines alone, and use them only for what they were intended - dealing with time stamps for system events. 2) Provide a general-purpose time value manipulation package for the benefit of applications that have to deal with arbitrary dates and times. In fact, you may even be able to write the latter package in some language available on lots of machines (C, Fortran, whatever), and decouple it from the system entirely.

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!nbires!vianet!devine March 19, 1987

March 19, 1987

Someone wrote: > Yes, but nothing in a UNIX system happened in the 19th century. > Non-UNIX systems lacking "time_t" have done quite well dealing with > times; I don't see any need to use "time_t" for every kind of > timestamp any application could possibly want. Mark replied: ! Sorry, but I disagree. UNIX provides some very nice date/time ! manipulation routines, [...]. I had to reinvent this wheel, and ! I swiped code from ctime like crazy. I wound up choosing ISO time ! (char string) as my standard format. While Unix does not need dates before 1970, I agree it should be more flexible. In order to provide a consistent time format for a network of heterogeneous machines that had time epochs != 1/1/70, I too used the ISO format for dates and times. I didn't have to go as far as Mark did because only network programs (that cared) used the new date/time format; existing programs used OS-dependent calls. Pre-epoch dates were a pain... Bob Devine

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!cbpavo.MIS.OH.ATT.COM!mark March 18, 1987

March 18, 1987

> > Sometimes we care about things that happened in the 19th century > > (birthdates, for example.) > > Yes, but nothing in a UNIX system happened in the 19th century. > Non-UNIX systems lacking "time_t" have done quite well dealing with > times; I don't see any need to use "time_t" for every kind of > timestamp any application could possibly want. Sorry, but I disagree. UNIX provides some very nice date/time manipulation routines, which know about time zones and daylight time, months of the year, leap years, and various other ugly stuff that people don't like to reimplement. An application that has to store a date has a strong incentive to use the existing routines rather than to invent a new format. It would be VERY NICE if the UNIX routines were useful for more than just timestamps on the local system. It is not necessary that time_t be used for this, as long as there is some standard representation that can do it. ctime might be one, ISO time might be one, or struct tm might be one, or it might be something new. I had to reinvent this wheel, and I swiped code from ctime like crazy. I wound up choosing ISO time (char string) as my standard format. My resulting code is highly unportable, because it knows about time_t and two different conventions for time zone, and it has all the daylight rules built into it. Mark

1 0

Re: List of issues
by ado March 18, 1987

March 18, 1987

> > Should time() return an implementation defined time > > representation or should it return elapsed seconds > > since midnight January 1 1970 GMT? > The current POSIX draft already states that it returns the latter; do > we want to change this? No. . .I want to make sure it stays that way. > X3J11 also has "time" and "time_t", although since they're not > defining an OS standard they do not require "time_t" to be an > integral type representing seconds since the epoch. Ideally, I'd like to see both X3J11 and POSIX define time_t as elapsed seconds since midnight January 1 1970 GMT, and see them both define the time function as returning such a value. If this isn't possible, I'd like to see X3J11 define *differently-named* types and functions--tempus_t and tempus, or whatever. My fear is that there are programs out there that "know" what a time_t is that "know" what the "time" function returns, and that will break if things are changed. -- UUCP: ..seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado(a)seismo.ARPA Elsie and Ado are trademarks of Borden, Inc. and Ampex.

1 0

Ballot # 1
by seismo!nbires!vianet!devine March 18, 1987

March 18, 1987

Since this is the first ballot, here are the balloting rules: 1. Send votes by mail to me (uucp address below) 2. If you feel that the offered choices for an issue are not sufficient, send me mail with suggested addition. If enough suggestions (or one whose argument is compelling) a new round of voting on that issue will be done. 3. Vote EARLY and only once (even if you are from Chicago). 4. If a message never got to your mailbox (you can tell by the reception of the next higher ballot) I will send another to you if it might make a difference in the total vote. 5. Results are piggybacked on ballots to reduce the number of messages. 6. Because there are X issues and not X weeks to discuss them, there will be several ballots per week. 7. I will not decide "winning" choices. I will only keep a count. 8. Discussion of each ballot in the mailing list is encouraged. 9. NOTE: Your votes are not the final say on how the Posix document is structured but are intended to provide valuable input. >> How best to forward the results is still unknown -- comments please.<< If you have any issues you want to see included, please send them to me. I am starting out with, what I hope, will be an issue that will not cause too much argument and gnashing of teeth. Bob Devine {nbires, hao, ihnp4!stcvax} !vianet!devine ----------------- This is Ballot # 1 on Posix time-related issues. 1. Fate of external variables "daylight", "timezone", and "tzname[]" a. Don't put in standard and discourage use. b. Don't put in standard and allow implementation-optional use. c. Place in standard as currently defined in SVID. d. Place in standard but with different or expanded definitions. ----------------- CURRENT LIST OF ISSUES 1. Fate of the external variables daylight, timezone, and tzname[] [ undecided ] 2. Use the user's environment variable to define the timezone for that user [ undecided ] 3. Use the user's environment variable to define timezone rules [ undecided ] 4. How user selects a non-default timezone [ undecided ] 5. Allow user to define a new timezone and set of rules [ undecided ] 6. Definition of what struct tm (or struct new_tm) contains. [ undecided ] 7. List of what time functions are needed. [ undecided ] 8. Definition of what time_t holds.-- implementation defined or seconds since some epoch (eg, 1/1/1970). [ undecided ] 9. Drop mktime from standard because of lack of existing art? [ undecided ]

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!sun!guy March 18, 1987

March 18, 1987

Sometimes we need subsecond precision. Yes, but "time_t"s need not provide subsecond precision; 4.[23]BSD-style "struct timeval" may not be ideal, but they do the job. Sometimes we care about things that happened in the 19th century (birthdates, for example.) Yes, but nothing in a UNIX system happened in the 19th century. Non-UNIX systems lacking "time_t" have done quite well dealing with times; I don't see any need to use "time_t" for every kind of timestamp any application could possibly want. It might be aesthetically "nice" to have the time representation used by the OS be the same that would be used by every conceivable application, but I don't see that it's worth the effort of changing what a "time_t" is. (There are plenty of OSes out there with the same problem; the VMS epoch starts 00:00 - local time, I believe - November 17, 1858.)

1 0

Re: List of issues
by seismo!sun!guy March 18, 1987

March 18, 1987

1. Should time() return an implementation defined time representation or should it return elapsed seconds since midnight January 1 1970 GMT? The current POSIX draft already states that it returns the latter; do we want to change this? If it does not return elapsed seconds, should the name "time" (or the type name "time_t") be changed (so as to noisily break existing code, rather than quietly breaking existing code?) X3J11 also has "time" and "time_t", although since they're not defining an OS standard they do not require "time_t" to be an integral type representing seconds since the epoch.

1 0

Re: northamerica timezones & Saskatchewan
by seismo!nbires!vianet!devine March 17, 1987

March 17, 1987

Darwyn Peachey peachey(a)sask.UUCP writes: > If I am reading your "northamerica" (version 3.1) timezone file correctly, > it appears to be inaccurate concerning the province of Saskatchewan in > Canada. You seem to assume that all of Canada observes the DST rules. > In fact, Saskatchewan is always on standard time and has been for several > years (up to 20, I'd guess). To be more precise, we are always on daylight > time, since we are geographically in the Mountain zone, but we use Central > Standard Time year round! The information I have found on Saskatchewan Daylight Time is this: 1962-1971 Variable (each locality may have done something different) but it seems to be last Sunday in April to last Sunday in October (September in 1960-1) 1972-present? Observed in entire province except in the far-eastern part (that part is on Central Standard time all year) The western part is on the last Sunday in April to last Sunday in October schedule I don't know where the machine 'skorpio' is but I infer that it is in the Eastern part of Saskatchewan. Does anyone have access to an official publication of Canada that describes DST? Does such a publication exist? Bob Devine

1 0

Re: northamerica timezones & Saskatchewan
by Arthur David Olson March 16, 1987

March 16, 1987

> Saskatchewan is. . .always on daylight time, since we are geographically > in the Mountain zone, but we use Central Standard Time year round! > Thus, there is always a four hour time difference between us and Hawaii. . . > Darwyn Peachey peachey(a)sask.UUCP peacheyd(a)sask.BITNET (306) 966-4909 With a machine name like sask, I'll willing to accept your word as authoritative! Is "CST" the right time zone abbreviation to use in your neck of the woods? Is this: Zone Canada/Saskatchewan -6:00 - CST the right line to have in the northamerica file? --ado

1 0

northamerica timezones & Saskatchewan
by seismo!ihnp4!skorpio!peachey March 16, 1987

March 16, 1987

If I am reading your "northamerica" (version 3.1) timezone file correctly, it appears to be inaccurate concerning the province of Saskatchewan in Canada. You seem to assume that all of Canada observes the DST rules. In fact, Saskatchewan is always on standard time and has been for several years (up to 20, I'd guess). To be more precise, we are always on daylight time, since we are geographically in the Mountain zone, but we use Central Standard Time year round! Thus, there is always a four hour time difference between us and Hawaii (whereas the temperature difference varies from -130F to +20F). Darwyn Peachey peachey(a)sask.UUCP peacheyd(a)sask.BITNET (306) 966-4909

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by Arthur David Olson March 15, 1987

March 15, 1987

> > Dumb question #2: if there's a way to turn tm structures ... > > does .. [ being able to deduce it ] ... > > obviate the need for a GMT offset element in the tm structure? > Certainly, this is possible. . .But the zone offset information is trivially > available to localtime, it seems like it can't hurt to provide this extra > information, essentially for free. The only place I can think of that it might hurt is if someone has squirreled away tm structures in a disk file. If that's happened, the committee's desire to avoid breaking existing code would argue against changing the tm structure. Now if you change the structure's name, then code will break noisily-- something the committee seems willing to accept. -- UUCP: ..seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado(a)seismo.ARPA Elsie and Ado are trademarks of Borden, Inc. and Ampex.

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!cbpavo.MIS.OH.ATT.COM!mark March 15, 1987

March 15, 1987

Dumb question #1: what applications use the offset from GMT of local time? (That is, why do we want the offset in the tm structure in the first place?) I've run across it in networking applications, such as mail, netnews, and transactions. They get char string date/time info from some other place (possibly around the world) and have to understand it. Dumb question #2: if there's a way to turn tm structures into time_t values, does the ability to do something like offset = time_of_interest - convert_tm_to_gmt(localtime(time_of_interest)); (possibly followed by offset = -offset; depending on what sex you think the offset should be) obviate the need for a GMT offset element in the tm structure? Partly. At the higher levels, what I really want to do is things like this: Convert gmtime char string to localtime char string Convert localtime char string to gmtime char string Compare two times to see which is older. Compare two times to see if one is more than X older or newer than the other Add or subtract X hours (minutes, days, seconds, years) from a time. Also, a long isn't enough to handle the times of interest. Sometimes we need subsecond precision. Sometimes we care about things that happened in the 19th century (birthdates, for example.) Part of me wonders if a floating type could be used for time_t. Nobody wants subsecond precision on a birthdate, although they might want it for times very close to "now". I guess what I really want is a floating point where zero means "now", but that doesn't exactly work out unless you throw in a fixed reference point. Mark

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by Robert Elz March 14, 1987

March 14, 1987

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 13:29:55 EST From: elsie!ado (Arthur David Olson) Message-ID: <8703141829.AA01740(a)elsie.UUCP> Dumb question #1: what applications use the offset from GMT of local time? Anything which wants to record time in local time (for ease of human reading) but be precise about the zone so the precise GMT time can be reconstructed. Mailers are a prime example, the Date: line should contain such an offset (only in the 5 US zones is it allowable to use an abbreviation .. except the stupid US military one letter abbreviations; and even those 5 are only allowed in rfc822 style mail, ISO stuff always requires the numeric offset) Dumb question #2: if there's a way to turn tm structures ... does .. [ being able to deduce it ] ... obviate the need for a GMT offset element in the tm structure? Certainly, this is possible. Initially I wasn't realy impressed with the need for the offset in the struct tm because of how easy it is to obtain this way (even without the inverse functions, its not hard to do a struct subtraction (ie: multiple subtractions, with additions & multiplications to combine the answers) of the results of gmtime() and localtime()). But the zone offset information is trivially available to localtime, it seems like it can't hurt to provide this extra information, essentially for free. kre

1 0

Re: Dumb questions about GMT offset in tm structure
by seismo!cbosgd.MIS.OH.ATT.COM!mark March 14, 1987

March 14, 1987

Dumb question #1: what applications use the offset from GMT of local time? (That is, why do we want the offset in the tm structure in the first place?) I've run across it in networking applications, such as mail, netnews, and transactions. They get char string date/time info from some other place (possibly around the world) and have to understand it. Dumb question #2: if there's a way to turn tm structures into time_t values, does the ability to do something like offset = time_of_interest - convert_tm_to_gmt(localtime(time_of_interest)); (possibly followed by offset = -offset; depending on what sex you think the offset should be) obviate the need for a GMT offset element in the tm structure? Partly. At the higher levels, what I really want to do is things like this: Convert gmtime char string to localtime char string Convert localtime char string to gmtime char string Compare two times to see which is older. Compare two times to see if one is more than X older or newer than the other Add or subtract X hours (minutes, days, seconds, years) from a time. Also, a long isn't enough to handle the times of interest. Sometimes we need subsecond precision. Sometimes we care about things that happened in the 19th century (birthdates, for example.) Part of me wonders if a floating type could be used for time_t. Nobody wants subsecond precision on a birthdate, although they might want it for times very close to "now". I guess what I really want is a floating point where zero means "now", but that doesn't exactly work out unless you throw in a fixed reference point. Mark

1 0

Are these limitations in the mod.sources time zone stuff worth worry?
by Arthur David Olson March 14, 1987

March 14, 1987

Completely off the standardization track for a moment. . . There are some limitations in the time zone stuff that was recently posted to mod.sources; I'm wondering if other folks have opinions on whether the limitations are worth worrying about, or if folks have inspired changes to the code that will get around the limitations. If you're not the nit-picking type, please feel free to ignore this letter. A preamble: the format of the files stored in the /etc/zoneinfo directory was designed to keep the files small and thus to keep down the overhead involved in reading the time zone information from disk. For example, here on Elsie, the "/etc/zoneinfo/US/Eastern" file weighs in at 814 bytes, which means that the time zone information fits in one logical disk block. And now. . . 1. While the file format allows big-endian and little-endian machines to use the same (file-server-provided) file to get time zone information from, it can't be used both by (traditional) machines that want to have signed time_t's and by (kre-controlled Australian) machines that want to have unsigned time_t's. Is this worth worrying about? Should the transition times be stored as "long long"s, doubles, or text? Does the added utility warrant the extra storage? 2. There are all those nasty "MAX"es built in to tzfile.h (and, by reference, into localtime et al.): #define TZ_MAX_TIMES 370 /* Maximum number of transition times */ #define TZ_MAX_TYPES 10 /* Maximum number of local time types */ #define TZ_MAX_CHARS 50 /* Maximum number of abbreviation characters */ Are the limits worth worrying about? Should localtime et al. do memory allocation to overcome the limits? Should the functions buffer some of the time zone informtion and go to disk if information that's needed isn't in the buffer? 3. And then there's Saudi Arabia. (I trust folks saw the recent Scientific American article on newly available digital watches that, when fed longitude and latitude, will provide local solar time-- this allows Moslems to observe daily prayers.) To do Saudi Arabia right--or at any rate, to do it right to the second--you need about 2000 local time types. Since, these days, local time types are stored on disk as unsigned chars, you can only get 256. The easy way out would be to encode time types the same way that transition times are encoded; this would about double the size of time zone information files. Is the added functionality worth the size doubling? Is the problem even worth worrying about? Is there a better way to deal with it? -- UUCP: ..seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado(a)seismo.ARPA Elsie and Ado are trademarks of Borden, Inc. and Ampex.

1 0