* classes and the classes they depend on. The classes are not relocated, they all
 * remain in their original namespace. This reduces the final Gradle distribution
 * size and makes us more conscious of which parts of a library we really need.
 *
 * WARNING: if you decide to do the minification by hand, make sure that you cover all paths of loading classes:
 * reflection, dynamic loading, etc. and understand how the library works internally.

 *
 * <p>Tests should inherit from this class, and declare subtyping relationship with public methods
 * annotated by {@link TestSubtype}.
 *
 * <p>These declaration methods rely on Java static type checking to make sure what we want to
 * assert as subtypes are really subtypes according to javac. For example:
 *
 * {@snippet :
 * class MySubtypeTests extends SubtypeTester {
 *   @TestSubtype(suppressGetSubtype = true, suppressGetSupertype = true)

 *
 * <p>Tests should inherit from this class, and declare subtyping relationship with public methods
 * annotated by {@link TestSubtype}.
 *
 * <p>These declaration methods rely on Java static type checking to make sure what we want to
 * assert as subtypes are really subtypes according to javac. For example:
 *
 * {@snippet :
 * class MySubtypeTests extends SubtypeTester {
 *   @TestSubtype(suppressGetSubtype = true, suppressGetSupertype = true)

	"BLT":   true,
	"BGT":   true,
	"BLE":   true,
	"CALL":  true,
	"CBZ":   true,
	"CBZW":  true,
	"CBNZ":  true,
	"CBNZW": true,
	"JMP":   true,
	"TBNZ":  true,
	"TBZ":   true,

	// ADR isn't really a jump, but it takes a PC or label reference,
	// which needs to patched like a jump.
	"ADR":  true,
	"ADRP": true,
}

func jumpArm64(word string) bool {
	return arm64Jump[word]
}

 * test with reference to the same "lock-like object", and then their interactions with that object
 * are choreographed via the various methods on this class.
 *
 * <p>A "lock-like object" is really any object that may be used for concurrency control. If the
 * {@link #callAndAssertBlocks} method is ever called in a test, the lock-like object must have a

      /*
       * Since reflection can't tell the difference between <T> and <T extends Object>, it doesn't
       * make a ton of sense to have a separate tests for each. But having tests for each doesn't
       * really hurt anything, and maybe it will serve a purpose in a future in which Java has a
       * built-in nullness feature?
       */
      "ExtendsObject",
    })
    <T extends Object> void withObjectBound(List<T> list) {}

  }

  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible // threads
  public void testOverflowTimeout() throws Exception {
    // First, sanity check that naive multiplication would really overflow to a negative number:
    long nanosPerSecond = NANOSECONDS.convert(1, SECONDS);
    assertThat(nanosPerSecond * Long.MAX_VALUE).isLessThan(0L);

    - [Container Images](#container-images)
  - [Changelog since v1.36.0-alpha.2](#changelog-since-v1360-alpha2)
  - [Urgent Upgrade Notes](#urgent-upgrade-notes)
    - [(No, really, you MUST read this before you upgrade)](#no-really-you-must-read-this-before-you-upgrade)
  - [Changes by Kind](#changes-by-kind)
    - [Deprecation](#deprecation)
    - [API Change](#api-change)
    - [Feature](#feature)

 * test with reference to the same "lock-like object", and then their interactions with that object
 * are choreographed via the various methods on this class.
 *
 * <p>A "lock-like object" is really any object that may be used for concurrency control. If the
 * {@link #callAndAssertBlocks} method is ever called in a test, the lock-like object must have a

  }

  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible // threads
  public void testOverflowTimeout() throws Exception {
    // First, sanity check that naive multiplication would really overflow to a negative number:
    long nanosPerSecond = NANOSECONDS.convert(1, SECONDS);
    assertThat(nanosPerSecond * Long.MAX_VALUE).isLessThan(0L);