On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Rémi Forax wrote: > On 02/11/2011 12:20 AM, Attila Szegedi wrote: >> I was actually doing this until yesterday for compiling the dynalink >> framework, and while the 1.6 javac did give me a warning and suggested I >> need a newer version of the compiler, it didn't stop with an error. When >> those classes were then loaded in an OpenJDK JVM, they nicely passed all >> tests. So funnily enough, I was able to work on it with the 1.6 compiler :-) >> >> Of course, in my code, I never have actual invokedynamic call sites in the >> bytecode, it's all about direct MethodHandle manipulation. >> >> Attila. >> > > You are not alone. > I don't want to denounce someone but I know a ruby guy ( :) ) that also > generate 1.6 classfile.
:-) FWIW, I was doing it on purpose, as I (mistakenly) thought it'd be required to use dynalink in conjunction with the JSR-292 backport on a Java 6 JDK. One unexpected side benefit this had was that I was still able to measure test code coverage with EMMA… Attila. > > Rémi
_______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
