What follows is taken (mostly) from more extensive discussions in the following sci.math posts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/814be41b1ea8c024 [23 January 2000]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/3ea26975d010711f [6 November 2006]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/05dbc0ee4c69898e [20 December 2006]
Note: The term interval is restricted to nondegenerate intervals (i.e. intervals containing more than one point).
The continuity set of a derivative on an open interval $J$ is dense in $J.$ In fact, the continuity set has cardinality $c$ in every subinterval of $J.$ On the other hand, the discontinuity set $D$ of a derivative can have the following properties:
$D$ can be dense in $\mathbb R$.
$D$ can have cardinality $c$ in every interval.
$D$ can have positive measure. (Hence, the function can fail to be Riemann integrable.)
$D$ can have positive measure in every interval.
$D$ can have full measure in every interval (i.e. measure zero complement).
$D$ can have a Hausdorff dimension zero complement.
$D$ can have an $h$-Hausdorff measure zero complement for any specified Hausdorff measure function $h.$
More precisely, a subset $D$ of $\mathbb R$ can be the discontinuity set for some derivative if and only if $D$ is an $F_{\sigma}$ first category (i.e. an $F_{\sigma}$ meager) subset of $\mathbb R.$
This characterization of the discontinuity set of a derivative can be found in the following references: Benedetto [1] (Chapter 1.3.2, Proposition, 1.10, p. 30); Bruckner [2] (Chapter 3, Section 2, Theorem 2.1, p. 34); Bruckner/Leonard [3] (Theorem at bottom of p. 27); Goffman [5] (Chapter 9, Exercise 2.3, p. 120 states the result); Klippert/Williams [7].
Regarding this characterization of the discontinuity set of a derivative, Bruckner and Leonard [3] (bottom of p. 27) wrote the following in 1966: Although we imagine that this theorem is known, we have been unable to find a reference. I have found the result stated in Goffman's 1953 text [5], but nowhere else prior to 1966 (including Goffman's Ph.D. Dissertation).
Interestingly, in a certain sense most derivatives have the property that $D$ is large in all of the ways listed above (#1 through #7).
In 1977 Cliff Weil [8] published a proof that, in the space of derivatives with the sup norm, all but a first category set of such functions are discontinuous almost everywhere (in the sense of Lebesgue measure). When Weil's result is paired with the fact that derivatives (being Baire $1$ functions) are continuous almost everywhere in the sense of Baire category, we get the following:
(A) Every derivative is continuous at the Baire-typical point.
(B) The Baire-typical derivative is not continuous at the Lebesgue-typical point.
Note that Weil's result is stronger than simply saying that the Baire-typical derivative fails to be Riemann integrable (i.e. $D$ has positive Lebesgue measure), or even stronger than saying that the Baire-typical derivative fails to be Riemann integrable on every interval. Note also that, for each of these Baire-typical derivatives, $\{D, \; {\mathbb R} - D\}$ gives a partition of $\mathbb R$ into a first category set and a Lebesgue measure zero set.
In 1984 Bruckner/Petruska [4] (Theorem 2.4) strengthened Weil's result by proving the following: Given any finite Borel measure $\mu,$ the Baire-typical derivative is such that the set $D$ is the complement of a set that has $\mu$-measure zero.
In 1993 Kirchheim [5] strengthened Weil's result by proving the following: Given any Hausdorff measure function $h,$ the Baire-typical derivative is such that the set $D$ is the complement of a set that has Hausdorff $h$-measure zero.
[1] John J. Benedetto, Real Variable and Integration With Historical Notes, Mathematische Leitfäden. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubne, 1976, 278 pages. [MR 58 #28328; Zbl 336.26001]
[2] Andrew M. Bruckner, Differentiation of Real Functions, 2nd edition, CRM Monograph Series #5, American Mathematical Society, 1994, xii + 195 pages. [The first edition was published in 1978 as Springer-Verlag's Lecture Notes in Mathematics #659. The second edition is essentially unchanged from the first edition with the exception of a new chapter on recent developments (23 pages) and 94 additional bibliographic items.] [MR 94m:26001; Zbl 796.26001]
[3] Andrew M. Bruckner and John L. Leonard, Derivatives, American Mathematical Monthly 73 #4 (April 1966) [Part II: Papers in Analysis, Herbert Ellsworth Slaught Memorial Papers #11], 24-56. [MR 33 #5797; Zbl 138.27805]
[4] Andrew M. Bruckner and György Petruska, Some typical results on bounded Baire $1$ functions, Acta Mathematica Hungarica 43 (1984), 325-333. [MR 85h:26004; Zbl 542.26004]
[5] Casper Goffman, Real Functions, Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, 1953/1967, x + 261 pages. [MR 14,855e; Zbl 53.22502]
[6] Bernd Kirchheim, Some further typical results on bounded Baire one functions, Acta Mathematica Hungarica 62 (1993), 119-129. [94k:26008; Zbl 786.26002]
[7] John Clayton Klippert and Geoffrey Williams, On the existence of a derivative continuous on a $G_{\delta}$, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 35 (2004), 91-99.
[8] Clifford Weil, The space of bounded derivatives, Real Analysis Exchange 3 (1977-78), 38-41. [Zbl 377.26005]
Best Answer
Non-measurable example
By the axiom of choice there is a $\mathbb Q$-linear basis of $\mathbb R.$ This basis has the same cardinality as $\mathbb R$ so can be indexed as $a_r$ for $r\in\mathbb R.$ Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=r$ if $x$ is of the form $a_0+qa_r$ for some rational $q$ and real $r,$ and set $f(x)=0$ for $x$ not of this form. Then $f$ is Darboux because the set $\{a_0+qa_r\mid q\in\mathbb Q\}$ is dense for each $r.$ But for each $\theta>0,$ we can only have $f(q\theta)\neq 0$ for at most one rational $q$ - the reciprocal of the $a_0$ coefficient of $\theta.$ In particular $f(n\theta)\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ with $n\in\mathbb N.$
Measurable example
For $n\geq 2$ let $b_n=n!(n-1)!\dots 2!.$ Each real has a unique "mixed radix" expression as $x=\lfloor x\rfloor + \sum_{n\geq 2}\frac{x_n}{b_n}$ where $x_n$ is the unique representative of $\lfloor b_n x\rfloor$ modulo $n!$ lying in $\{0,1,\dots,n!-1\}.$ For non-negative $x$ define $f(x)=\lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{1}{n}\sum_{m=2}^n x_m$ if this limit exists and $x_n\leq 1$ for all sufficiently large $n,$ and take $f(x)=0$ otherwise. For negative $x$ define $f(x)=f(-x).$ Note $f(x)\in[0,1].$ It is straightforward to see that $f$ takes all values in $[0,1]$ in every interval and is hence Darboux.
Now consider a real $x>0$ with $f(x)\neq 0$ and let $q<1$ be rational. We will show that $f(qx)=0.$ We know there exists $N$ such that $x_n\leq 1$ for all $n>N.$ Increasing $N$ if necessary we can assume that $qN$ is an integer. We also know that $x_n=1$ for infinitely many $n>N$ - otherwise we would have $\lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{1}{n}\sum_{m=2}^n x_m=0.$ Write $x=x'/b_{n-1}+1/b_n+\epsilon/b_{n+1}$ where $x'$ is an integer and $0\leq\epsilon< 2.$ So $qx b_{n+1}=qx'n!(n+1)!+q(n+1)!+q\epsilon.$ The first term is a multiple of $(n+1)!$ because $qn!$ is an integer, and the second term $q(n+1)!$ is an integer, and $q\epsilon<2.$ So $(qx)_{n+1}$ is either $q(n+1)!$ or $q(n+1)!+1$ (note this is less than $(n+1)!$). Since $q(n+1)!>1$ and there are infinitely many such $n,$ we get $f(qx)=0,$ .
This shows that for each $\theta>0,$ the sequence $f(n\theta)$ takes at most one non-zero value, and in particular $f(n\theta)\to 0.$
Remark: this $f$ appears to be a counterexample to https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4673 Theorem 4.1.