Would it make sense then to add that as a compiler argument instead of relying on bytecode version? From a user's perspective, that relationship isn't clear.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:34 PM Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03.09.2018 14:33, Keegan Witt wrote: > > I'm working on adding Java 9, 10, and 11 bytecodes to the 2.5 branch, > > and 9, 10, and 11 bytecodes when using invokedynamic to master, when I > > noticed we allow the targets to go back quite a ways. > > > > Should we continue to let the Groovy compiler target Java 4, 5, 6, and 7 > > in master, given that master requires Java 8+? I can't think of a valid > > use case where this would be useful. What do you think of removing them? > > > nobody needs to target 4 or 5 really any more I think. 6 has the nice > advantage of not requiring the stack map frames. The stackmap frame > calculation support in asm is a bit.. lets say, it comes not for free. > > So otherwise I see no problem in targeting Java8 > > bye Jochen >
