HOW THE HELL CAN YOU KNOW THAT YEARS DIVISIBLE BY 100 ARE NOT LEAPYEARS
WITHOUT KNOW THAT ****YEARS DIVISIBLE BY 400 ARE LEAP YEARS****???!??!?
HOW?!??? HOW?!??? HOW????!?! HOW!
Just kill me now! :)
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, S. Shore wrote:
> In fact, the year 2000 isn't a leap year. A little-known rule of leapyears
> (iirc) is that any year divisible by 100 (i think) can't be a leapyear.
>
> Scott.
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 robbie@scot-mur.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:03:30 +0000
> > From: robbie@scot-mur.demon.co.uk
> > To: Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Y2k compliance
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 10:30:44AM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 11:53:57AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Linux ignores the RTC century byte (for good reason). Before I put
> > > > > this fix in, when the year wrapped to 00 Linux would read the RTC
> > > > > year as 1900. So a reboot (who does that anyway?) would give a
> > > > > classic Y2K time warp.
> > > >
> > > > So how does it know what century it is?
> > >
> > > If the right part of the year is less then z it's 20xx if it's greater
> > > it's 19xx
> > So how does it cope with 2000 being a leep year? In the small ammount of
> > experimenting I have done, the year goes back to 1980, not 1900. I think
> > linux needs some way of dealing with these buggy machines, probably in
> > user space.
> > >
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/