From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FnXhv-00001n-Td for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:18:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k569HWXd028083; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:17:32 GMT Received: from smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.24.4]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k569HVbs000786 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:17:31 GMT X-Envelope-From: cast3r@seznam.cz Received: from [195.113.27.33] (Caster@gehinom.kolej.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.27.33]) by smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k569HTIh081785 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:17:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from cast3r@seznam.cz) Message-ID: <44854829.4000002@seznam.cz> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:17:29 +0200 From: Caster User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060605) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-java@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] Re: How to predetermine if ebuilds will compile with 1.5? References: <44833F92.1020201@seznam.cz> <44843F50.4020706@seznam.cz> <4484ADDC.2010105@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4484ADDC.2010105@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 95e9c003-a490-4ff3-83ed-e2b7e56aa657 X-Archives-Hash: 8e39ad0575ff47625bf553ee70dac43b 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@gentoo.org mailing list