On 16.04.2018 21:38, Remi Forax wrote:
the support of version 54.0 and only one sentence in section 4.7.25, see
that is the only change in bytecode? There have been enough flags in the
bytecode the JVM just ignores, that could have been done here as well -
or do I overlook something important?
Anyway, thanks for the pointer, very appreciated.
ASM related question: if Java now releases so much more often and is
much more often changing the bytecode version, wouldn't it be an option
to optionally disable the bytecode version check? Even if that means to
fail strangely in another place? I don't think a java9 based class
reader would have had problems with this bytecode. Might be this is a
special case of course and might be the next 10 cases are too severe for
this, you know surely better than I do. Its just a thought