| 1 |
Okay, that helps. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'm not a compiler expert but here's a couple factoids: 1) we're always |
| 4 |
working to improve performance, 2) the compiler team is always working |
| 5 |
on improving the compiler (fix bugs etc), 3) the generated byte codes |
| 6 |
can either exhibit certain bugs or performance gains/losses ... hence, |
| 7 |
hence I expect/assume the byte codes output to vary somewhat from |
| 8 |
release to relase. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I can't say how much or what specifically that would be. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
- David |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Caster wrote: |
| 16 |
> Greg Tassone wrote: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> I think this statement is a little too broad to be considered correct. |
| 19 |
>> The compiler can (and often does) make changes to the resulting binaries |
| 20 |
>> that may be VM-level specific (e.g., targeted for a 1.5 VM). Consider |
| 21 |
>> the "-target" argument for javac, for example, which "Allow[s] javac to |
| 22 |
>> use 1.5 specific features in the libraries and virtual |
| 23 |
>> machine" (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/features.html ). |
| 24 |
> David Herron wrote: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>> er... Caster, the bytecode does vary based on the compiler. And the |
| 27 |
>> class file format has varied a small amount from release to release with |
| 28 |
>> the 1.5 class file format being the most different. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> This is, as I understand it, the crux of the problem you guys are seeing |
| 31 |
>> with adopting 1.5 ... yes? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean the class file format which |
| 34 |
> is indeed different and causes problems. I was trying to ask if there |
| 35 |
> are any (the compiled bytecode performance?) gains of using 1.5 compiler |
| 36 |
> for 1.4 source (without specifying --source and --target 1.4). This |
| 37 |
> source won't use any 1.5 specific features, but you say the bytecode |
| 38 |
> still can somehow? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Caster |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
Archives