[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Paul King closed GROOVY-8591.
-----------------------------
> Consider additional target bytecode checks and/or simplification in some areas
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-8591
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8591
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Paul King
> Assignee: Eric Milles
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 5.0.0-alpha-1
>
>
> As part of fixing GROOVY-8579, I noticed that we don't do many checks for
> bytecode version. There are several areas that are possibly worth addressing:
> * In CompilerConfiguration we have a minimum bytecode version but we don't
> give an error or warning if the bytecode version is set to a value below the
> minimum version. If we did, would we even need the old, e.g. 1.4, 1.5 values
> in the allowed JDKs list? One option is to just check at the periphery, e.g.
> in groovyc/groovy options and assume people using the api know what they are
> doing?
> * There are some places where we produce very vanilla bytecodes and don't
> require a very high bytecode level, e.g. {{ProxyGeneratorAdapter}} (currently
> V1_5). Should we align those also with the minimum JDK version?
> * We have some checks that make sure we are using an annotation compatible
> JDK. These can surely be removed/simplified. Examples: ExtendedVerifier,
> JavaAwareCompilationUnit, JavaStubCompilationUnit.
> * We have some checks to ensure that we have a high enough bytecode level
> when using indy. Since our minimum (Groovy 2.5+) is now high enough to
> support indy, many of theose checks could be simplified/removed. One example
> is in {{WriterController#chooseBytecodeVersion}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
