From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.

We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.

LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

leap seconds in labview timestamp

Solved!
Go to solution

Hello,

I am puzzled about how the labview timestamp works and whether the leap seconds are included in it or not.

In the link http://www.ni.com/white-paper/7900/en/

It clearly states that they are not: (i64) seconds since the epoch 01/01/1904 00:00:00.00 UTC (using the Gregorian calendar and ignoring leap seconds)

 

BUT if I convert the current time (which I understand is the time of Windows which includes the leap seconds) to a labview timestamp in seconds they seem to be in sync and not to have an offset of 25 or so seconds which are the leap seconds introduced since 1/1/1904

Example:

12:10:00 07/10/2014  ->  3495521400

 

Is there a way to demonstrate with a small vi that the leap seconds are or are not included in the labview timestamp?

 

thank you

 

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 4
(2,736 Views)

Your test cleary states that the LabVIEW timestamp does not include leap seconds, otherwise the result would have been 3495521425.

 

Regards, Jens

Kudos are welcome...
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 4
(2,717 Views)

Thank you Jens for the answer. I think I understand now.

Then this means that the labview time "jumps" a second every time there is a leap second, correct?

So if I want to know which is the number of seconds that actually passed since 1/1/1904 I should add the leap seconds to the labview timestamp?

Thanks again,

Theodoros

0 Kudos
Message 3 of 4
(2,712 Views)
Solution
Accepted by topic author theodoros

@theodoros wrote:
So if I want to know which is the number of seconds that actually passed since 1/1/1904 I should add the leap seconds to the labview timestamp?

Correct!

 

Regards, Jens

Kudos are welcome...
0 Kudos
Message 4 of 4
(2,704 Views)