this.remainingField = remainingFutures;
  }

  final Set<Throwable> getOrInitSeenExceptions() {
    /*
     * The initialization of seenExceptionsField has to be more complicated than we'd like. The
     * simple approach would be for each caller CAS it from null to a Set populated with its
     * exception. But there's another race: If the first thread fails with an exception and a second
     * thread immediately fails with the same exception:

   * #remove} to forward to this implementation.
   *
   * <p>Alternately, you may wish to override {@link #remove} with {@code keySet().remove}, assuming
   * that approach would not lead to an infinite loop.
   *
   * @since 7.0
   */
  protected @Nullable V standardRemove(@Nullable Object key) {
    Iterator<Entry<K, V>> entryIterator = entrySet().iterator();

          quotient = divide(x, radix);
        }
        long rem = x - quotient * radix;
        buf[--i] = Character.forDigit((int) rem, radix);
        x = quotient;
        // Simple modulo/division approach
        while (x > 0) {
          buf[--i] = Character.forDigit((int) (x % radix), radix);
          x /= radix;
        }
      }
      // Generate string
      return new String(buf, i, buf.length - i);

           * block: https://github.com/google/truth/issues/333#issuecomment-765652454
           *
           * Also, it's nice that this approach should let us catch *only* ClassNotFoundException
           * instead of having to catch more broadly (potentially even including, say, a
           * StackOverflowError).
           */

            like to get an error. Currently we do, but if we add the extra <inherits> lines, we
            won't.

            I have one idea for a better approach, but it's painful, and I haven't tested it: We
            could postprocess Collect.gwt.xml to add <skip> lines for all the files that should be
            covered by testModule.gwt.xml. Maybe I'll try it someday.

          ubToAdd = rangeBelowLb.upperBound;
          /*
           * TODO(cpovirk): can we just "return;" here? Or, can we remove this if() entirely? If
           * not, add tests to demonstrate the problem with each approach
           */
        }
        lbToAdd = rangeBelowLb.lowerBound;
      }
    }

    Entry<Cut<C>, Range<C>> entryBelowUb = rangesByLowerBound.floorEntry(ubToAdd);
    if (entryBelowUb != null) {

   * future changes to it will alter the behavior of the predicate.
   *
   * <p>This method can technically accept any {@code Collection<?>}, but using a typed collection
   * helps prevent bugs. This approach doesn't block any potential users since it is always possible
   * to use {@code Predicates.<Object>in()}.
   *
   * <p>You may prefer to use a method reference (e.g., {@code target::contains}) instead of this

- Kubernetes api-server now merges selectors built from matchLabelKeys into the labelSelector of topologySpreadConstraints, 
  aligning Pod Topology Spread with the approach used by Inter-Pod Affinity.
  
  To avoid breaking existing pods that use matchLabelKeys, the current scheduler behavior will be preserved until it is removed in v1.34. 

       *
       * The absent indicator of -1 signed becomes 2^8 - 1 unsigned, which reduces the actual max
       * size to 2^8 - 1. However, due to a load factor < 1 the limit is never approached.
       */
      byte[] hashTable = new byte[tableSize];
      Arrays.fill(hashTable, ABSENT);

      int outI = 0;
      entries:
      for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {