// safely publish these objects and we won't need this whole discussion.
  // TODO(user,lukes): consider adding volatile to all these fields since in current known JVMs
  // that should resolve the issue. This comes at the cost of adding more write barriers to the
  // implementations.

  private Futures() {}

  /**

   * the other.
   *
   * <p>The resulting multimap's views have iterators that don't support {@code remove()}, but all
   * other methods are supported by the multimap and its views. When adding a key that doesn't
   * satisfy the predicate, the multimap's {@code put()}, {@code putAll()}, and {@code
   * replaceValues()} methods throw an {@link IllegalArgumentException}.
   *

   * This is a big deal - we're talking factors of 2-8 in microbenchmarks, not just 10-20%. (This is
   * a hotspot optimizer bug, which should be fixed, but that's a separate, big project).
   *
   * The coding pattern above is heavily used in java.util, e.g. in ArrayList. There is a
   * RangeCheckMicroBenchmark in the JDK that was used to test this.
   *

   * the segment.
   */
  final transient int segmentMask;

  /**
   * Shift value for indexing within segments. Helps prevent entries that end up in the same segment
   * from also ending up in the same bucket.
   */
  final transient int segmentShift;

  /** The segments, each of which is a specialized hash table. */
  final transient Segment<K, V, E, S>[] segments;

  public static <E extends @Nullable Object> CopyOnWriteArraySet<E> newCopyOnWriteArraySet(
      Iterable<? extends E> elements) {
    // We copy elements to an ArrayList first, rather than incurring the
    // quadratic cost of adding them to the COWAS directly.
    Collection<? extends E> elementsCollection =
        (elements instanceof Collection)
            ? (Collection<? extends E>) elements
            : Lists.newArrayList(elements);

                    }
                }
                else if ( !curReq.isResponseAsync() ) {
                    if ( log.isTraceEnabled() ) {
                        log.trace("Adding credits " + grantedCredits);
                    }
                    this.credits.release(grantedCredits);
                }
            }
        }

        if ( !response.isReceived() ) {

   * This is a big deal - we're talking factors of 2-8 in microbenchmarks, not just 10-20%. (This is
   * a hotspot optimizer bug, which should be fixed, but that's a separate, big project).
   *
   * The coding pattern above is heavily used in java.util, e.g. in ArrayList. There is a
   * RangeCheckMicroBenchmark in the JDK that was used to test this.
   *

   */
  private static <K, V> ImmutableSortedMap<K, V> fromEntries(
      Comparator<? super K> comparator,
      boolean sameComparator,
      Iterable<? extends Entry<? extends K, ? extends V>> entries) {
    // "adding" type params to an array of a raw type should be safe as
    // long as no one can ever cast that same array instance back to a
    // raw type.
    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")

    }
    assertWithMessage("table size after adding " + size + " elements")
        .that(bucketsOf(map1))
        .isEqualTo(initialBuckets);

    /*
     * Something slightly different happens when the entries are added all at
     * once; make sure that passes too.
     */
    map2.putAll(map1);
    assertWithMessage("table size after adding " + size + " elements")
        .that(bucketsOf(map1))

    }
    assertWithMessage("table size after adding " + size + " elements")
        .that(bucketsOf(map1))
        .isEqualTo(initialBuckets);

    /*
     * Something slightly different happens when the entries are added all at
     * once; make sure that passes too.
     */
    map2.putAll(map1);
    assertWithMessage("table size after adding " + size + " elements")
        .that(bucketsOf(map1))