Greg Tassone wrote:
> I think this statement is a little too broad to be considered correct.
> The compiler can (and often does) make changes to the resulting binaries
> that may be VM-level specific (e.g., targeted for a 1.5 VM).  Consider
> the "-target" argument for javac, for example, which "Allow[s] javac to
> use 1.5 specific features in the libraries and virtual
> machine" (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/features.html ).
>
David Herron wrote:
> 
> er... Caster, the bytecode does vary based on the compiler.  And the
> class file format has varied a small amount from release to release with
> the 1.5 class file format being the most different.
> 
> This is, as I understand it, the crux of the problem you guys are seeing
> with adopting 1.5 ... yes?
> 

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean the class file format which
is indeed different and causes problems. I was trying to ask if there
are any (the compiled bytecode performance?) gains of using 1.5 compiler
for 1.4 source (without specifying --source and --target 1.4). This
source won't use any 1.5 specific features, but you say the bytecode
still can somehow?

Caster

-- 
gentoo-java@g.o mailing list