From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Safety of unprotected concurrent operations on constant objects
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 18:45:40 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyiophbhyz.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <slrnlm6mkg.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <6c2cd5d4-a44c-4c18-81a3-a0e87d25cd9e@googlegroups.com>
 <slrnlmcoqd.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <waw9v.109142$f85.65293@fx19.iad> <scy9v.1071029$2N5.142769@fx05.iad>
 <kxy9v.109149$f85.89664@fx19.iad> <lyzjiw7h6c.fsf@pushface.org>
 <fRN9v.204655$Ng5.180587@fx17.iad>
 <t7a0jcl05g1h.11jb75b2jg1l7.dlg@40tude.net>
 <eT_9v.574$dr.264@fx27.iad>
 <83ha6vuynrzs.1jk08faxb8mnl.dlg@40tude.net>
 <97a0996a-a593-4990-95e9-44f4e9070fd3@googlegroups.com>
 <5368b00d$0$6703$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <lqsx31h1st5k.oag3lhs8dn2i$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5368dc70$0$6708$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <ye80u8yjop49.zttq1d7bi98f$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <53690cb8$0$6602$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <63k39u59mmk8.eeonyygr5rjc$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5369d765$0$6608$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1ujfeb1baw6ri.1iprdov55030o$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <536a1821$0$6706$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="6c8e46900abaabd1a3b7c03d9ac850ff";
 logging-data="17920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1892TH2xxIbhh7PolvmaxgWwmW195mMOcY="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4dj86QQ3Oz4TlE4GPu0uSjuMTr8=
 sha1:kBnzoaiB3WsraRi63oz/aTMlAfE=
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:186291
Date: 2014-05-07T18:45:40+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"G.B." <rm-dash-bau-haus@dash.futureapps.de> writes:

> The "sequential checks" that handle tampering already add to Ada
> containers being slow in comparison.

To what?

I did a very simple comparison of the Containers vs the BCs, and the
Containers won (I forget by how much). The BCs don't protect against
tampering.