8364660: ClassVerifier::ends_in_athrow() should be removed

[GoeLin]

I backport this for parity with 17.0.18-oracle from 21.

Resolved Copyright in verifier.hpp.

Skipped VerifierImpl.java, that was added by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294982: Implementation of Classfile API

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• JDK-8364660 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8364660: ClassVerifier::ends_in_athrow() should be removed (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Paul Hohensee (@phohensee - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/4128/head:pull/4128
$ git checkout pull/4128

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/4128
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/4128/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 4128

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 4128

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/4128.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back goetz! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (1055638e)

[openjdk]

⚠️ @GoeLin This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

[GoeLin]

HI @matias9927, @dean-long, @liach
I backported this pretty much as-is to 21 and 17.
@schmelter-sap noted in his review for 17 that the spec change is only for 22+.
So is it ok to backport it as I did? Or do I need to modify the change?

[liach]

I believe that particular JVMS change was tracked by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302497, which removes the sentence:

Accordingly, the handler is required to either complete abruptly by throwing an exception to the caller of the enclosing method, or to loop forever.

So this JBS issue makes it clear this has been applicable to previous releases, and I believe you can backport this to much older versions.