Re: Updating to a new GCC is fine too, but will likely blow up the modules work I've done for js-release as I noticed they've rewritten some of the compiler passes I had to fork. So upgrading GCC is likely to be a lot of work.
It was specifically the rework for modules that made me ask about this. I started looking into this the other day. They're using a different way to specify the passes which uses lambda expressions now which are not available in 7. Specifying 1.8 for java in maven dependencies meant I could make a start on it using the lambda expressions but it really was not worth continuing without being sure that 1.8/8 is ok. I only started on it because I wondered if updating to latest GCC would resolve the issue with reflection data. That is now fixed (another/unrelated way) so I definitely don't think this is priority either (as mentioned). I was just asking to understand about java version.. because I'd be keen to work on it at *some* point in the future. On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, 20:19 GitBox, <[email protected]> wrote: > aharui commented on issue #641: Fix PAYG violations and code debt > URL: > https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/issues/641#issuecomment-570487216 > > > I am not an Java expert. AIUI, there is a minimum JDK and there is a > code-style option, and a output byte-code version option for the Java > compiler. > > I think we've set the minimum JDK at version 8 because of SASS. But > our code is still written for Java <8. I do not know what the output > version is, but I think it may also be <8. > > FB has a patch that will get it to run on Java 8. I do not know what > would happen if the jars that interface with FB were given a newer code > style and/or output version. > > FB runs on OS X Sierra. I have not switched to newer. I've heard some > complaints, not sure if they were resolved or not. > > If someone has the time to upgrade the code style and output options > and get everything working again, that's fine with me. > > Updating to a new GCC is fine too, but will likely blow up the modules > work I've done for js-release as I noticed they've rewritten some of the > compiler passes I had to fork. So upgrading GCC is likely to be a lot of > work. > > IMO, unless JDK versions are being obsoleted in a way that will affect > us, we have higher priorities than upgrading. But if someone wants to do > it, I won't object. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. > To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the > URL above to go to the specific comment. > > For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: > [email protected] > > > With regards, > Apache Git Services >
