Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The following Windows C++ code is an example of a Category 1 leap year bug. It will work properly until the current date becomes February 29 of a leap year. Then, it will modify st to represent February 29 of a common year, a date which does not actually exist. Passing st to any function that accepts a SYSTEMTIME struct as a parameter will ...
Note: In this algorithm January and February are counted as months 13 and 14 of the previous year. E.g. if it is 2 February 2010 (02/02/2010 in DD/MM/YYYY), the algorithm counts the date as the second day of the fourteenth month of 2009 (02/14/2009 in DD/MM/YYYY format) So the adjusted year above is:
On 5 January 1975, the 12-bit field that had been used for dates in the TOPS-10 operating system for DEC PDP-10 computers overflowed, in a bug known as "DATE75". The field value was calculated by taking the number of years since 1964, multiplying by 12, adding the number of months since January, multiplying by 31, and adding the number of days since the start of the month; putting 2 12 − 1 ...
A year may be a leap year if it is evenly divisible by 4. Years divisible by 100 (century years such as 1900 or 2000) cannot be leap years unless they are also divisible by 400. (For this reason ...
Microsoft Excel has always had a deliberate leap year bug, which falsely treats 29 February 1900 as an actual date, to ensure backward compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3. [ 20 ] Hyrum Wright , an engineer at Google , talks about this problem that he observed firsthand while working on C++ core libraries.
The rule is that if the year is divisible by 100 and not divisible by 400, the leap year is skipped. The year 2000 was a leap year, for example, but the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not. The ...
For example, assignment of the number of days in a month (excluding leap years) could be achieved by using either a switch statement or by using a table with an enumeration value as an index. The number of tests required based on the source code could be considerably different depending upon the coverage required, although semantically we would ...
Here's the confusing part: According to the NIST, century leap years are only leap years if they can be evenly divided by 400. So, for example, 1700, 1800 and 1900 weren't leap years. And 2100?