* of the function in [7.0, 10.0] is equivalent to the sum of the integrals of [7.0, 8.0], [8.0,
   * 9.0], [9.0, 10.0] (and so on), no matter what the function is. This guarantees that we handle
   * correctly requests of varying weight (permits), /no matter/ what the actual function is - so we
   * can tweak the latter freely. (The only requirement, obviously, is that we can compute its
   * integrals).
   *

}

// FirstRequestAndProcessXds returns all XDS responses from 1 central or 1..N K8s cluster-based XDS servers,
// stopping after the first response that returns any resources.
// nolint: lll
func FirstRequestAndProcessXds(dr *discovery.DiscoveryRequest, centralOpts clioptions.CentralControlPlaneOptions, istioNamespace string,

    assertEquals(1, numCalls.get());
  }

  /*
   * Under Android, MyError propagates up and fails the test?
   *
   * TODO(b/218700094): Does this matter to prod users, or is it just a feature of our testing
   * environment? If the latter, maybe write a custom Executor that avoids failing the test when it
   * sees an Error?
   */
  @AndroidIncompatible
  public void testTaskThrowsError() throws Exception {

    assertEquals(1, numCalls.get());
  }

  /*
   * Under Android, MyError propagates up and fails the test?
   *
   * TODO(b/218700094): Does this matter to prod users, or is it just a feature of our testing
   * environment? If the latter, maybe write a custom Executor that avoids failing the test when it
   * sees an Error?
   */
  @AndroidIncompatible
  public void testTaskThrowsError() throws Exception {

   * Each bit is set to 1 for all remainders that indicate divisibility by 2, 3, or 5, so
   * 1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29 are set to 0. 30 and up don't matter because they won't be hit.
   */
  private static final int SIEVE_30 =
      ~((1 << 1) | (1 << 7) | (1 << 11) | (1 << 13) | (1 << 17) | (1 << 19) | (1 << 23)
          | (1 << 29));

  /**

   * perform better than its longhand equivalent, but should not perform worse.
   *
   * @since 12.0
   */
  HashCode hashInt(int input);

  /**
   * Shortcut for {@code newHasher().putLong(input).hash()}; returns the hash code for the given
   * {@code long} value, interpreted in little-endian byte order. The implementation <i>might</i>

   * perform better than its longhand equivalent, but should not perform worse.
   *
   * @since 12.0
   */
  HashCode hashInt(int input);

  /**
   * Shortcut for {@code newHasher().putLong(input).hash()}; returns the hash code for the given
   * {@code long} value, interpreted in little-endian byte order. The implementation <i>might</i>

* Then check if the question (the vast majority are questions) is **clear**.

* In many cases the question asked is about an imaginary solution from the user, but there might be a **better** one. If you can understand the problem and use case better, you might be able to suggest a better **alternative solution**.

* If you can't understand the question, ask for more **details**.

### Reproduce the problem

   * Each bit is set to 1 for all remainders that indicate divisibility by 2, 3, or 5, so
   * 1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29 are set to 0. 30 and up don't matter because they won't be hit.
   */
  private static final int SIEVE_30 =
      ~((1 << 1) | (1 << 7) | (1 << 11) | (1 << 13) | (1 << 17) | (1 << 19) | (1 << 23)
          | (1 << 29));

  /**

   * under the assumption that for long-running instances, observed
   * contention levels will recur, so the cells will eventually be
   * needed again; and for short-lived ones, it does not matter.
   */

  /**
   * Padded variant of AtomicLong supporting only raw accesses plus CAS. The value field is placed
   * between pads, hoping that the JVM doesn't reorder them.
   *