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 <blackdrag@gmx.org> 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