| 1 |
Greg Tassone wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think this statement is a little too broad to be considered correct. |
| 3 |
> The compiler can (and often does) make changes to the resulting binaries |
| 4 |
> that may be VM-level specific (e.g., targeted for a 1.5 VM). Consider |
| 5 |
> the "-target" argument for javac, for example, which "Allow[s] javac to |
| 6 |
> use 1.5 specific features in the libraries and virtual |
| 7 |
> machine" (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/features.html ). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
David Herron wrote: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> er... Caster, the bytecode does vary based on the compiler. And the |
| 12 |
> class file format has varied a small amount from release to release with |
| 13 |
> the 1.5 class file format being the most different. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This is, as I understand it, the crux of the problem you guys are seeing |
| 16 |
> with adopting 1.5 ... yes? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean the class file format which |
| 20 |
is indeed different and causes problems. I was trying to ask if there |
| 21 |
are any (the compiled bytecode performance?) gains of using 1.5 compiler |
| 22 |
for 1.4 source (without specifying --source and --target 1.4). This |
| 23 |
source won't use any 1.5 specific features, but you say the bytecode |
| 24 |
still can somehow? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Caster |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-java@g.o mailing list |
Archives