However, there is also a big scary comment that says:
* With sparc64 using 64-bit time_t's, there is some system
* routine which sets ut_time==0 (the high-order word of a
* 64-bit time) instead of a 32-bit time value.
It sounds like something clobbers ut_time..
Big scary comment added by me, when fixing 'ac' to do more
reasonable things with such records... Afaik, we have still
not figured out what it is that writes records with zero for
Should an erratum be added in case this is unresolved by 5.3, or is
this too minor an issue?