CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0111-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0111-1.txt	2014/05/16 03:36:25	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0111-1.txt	2014/06/20 01:00:29	1.2
@@ -2157,3 +2157,49 @@
 clearly laid out.
 
 ***************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014  2:16 PM
+
+[From an administrative thread:]
+
+>...AI 111 is on performance (rather than  strictly real-time), of 
+>Containers, but I get the impression that  Randy isn’t too keen on 
+>relaxing the safety checks, and I think it’s  too early to discuss 
+>until there’s at least one implementation of the  Containers that 
+>passes the ACATS tests (get it functionally correct  then think about 
+>tuning it).
+
+Good point.  But even then it will be premature to discuss in ARG.  The way to
+attack that problem is to hack on (some implementation of) containers, profile
+them, and experiment with possible language changes, possible compiler
+changes, etc.  Making language changes first, in the hopes that they might make
+containers efficient, won't work -- too much guesswork.
+
+The moral of the story is that the folks who say standards committees should
+be standardizing existing practice, rather than inventing, are right.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014  2:23 PM
+
+> Good point.  But even then it will be premature to discuss in ARG.  
+> The way to attack that problem is to hack on (some implementation of) 
+> containers, profile them, and experiment with possible language 
+> changes, possible compiler changes, etc.  Making language changes 
+> first, in the hopes that they might make containers efficient, won't 
+> work -- too much guesswork.
+
+I agree. Let GNAT figure out how to make containers usable, we have an
+enormous incentive to do that, many of our customers are seriously worried
+by the horrible performance compared to C++ and we have to do something about
+it.
+
+> The moral of the story is that the folks who say standards committees 
+> should be standardizing existing practice, rather than inventing, are 
+> right.
+
+Especially at this stage.
+
+***************************************************************