int stride = 8;
        int minLength = Math.min(left.length, right.length);
        int strideLimit = minLength & ~(stride - 1);
        int i;

        /*
         * Compare 8 bytes at a time. Benchmarking on x86 shows a stride of 8 bytes is no slower
         * than 4 bytes even on 32-bit. On the other hand, it is substantially faster on 64-bit.
         */
        for (i = 0; i < strideLimit; i += stride) {

			}
		},
		func(q *core.ResourceRequirements, c fuzz.Continue) {
			randomQuantity := func() resource.Quantity {
				var q resource.Quantity
				c.Fuzz(&q)
				// precalc the string for benchmarking purposes
				_ = q.String()
				return q
			}
			q.Limits = make(core.ResourceList)
			q.Requests = make(core.ResourceList)
			cpuLimit := randomQuantity()
			q.Limits[core.ResourceCPU] = cpuLimit.DeepCopy()

// split would take longer (because of the nat/nat div()) than the twice as many divW()'s of the
// iterative approach. This threshold is represented by leafSize. Benchmarking of leafSize in the
// range 2..64 shows that values of 8 and 16 work well, with a 4x speedup at medium lengths and
// ~30x for 20000 digits. Use nat_test.go's BenchmarkLeafSize tests to optimize leafSize for

   * elements will appear in the returned list in the same order they appeared in {@code elements}.
   *
   * <p><b>Performance note:</b> According to our
   * benchmarking
   * on Open JDK 7, {@link #immutableSortedCopy} generally performs better (in both time and space)
   * than this method, and this method in turn generally performs better than copying the list and

   *
   * <p><b>Performance note:</b> {@link ArrayList} and {@link java.util.ArrayDeque} consistently
   * outperform {@code LinkedList} except in certain rare and specific situations. Unless you have
   * spent a lot of time benchmarking your specific needs, use one of those instead.
   *
   * <p><b>Note:</b> this method is now unnecessary and should be treated as deprecated. Instead,

   * elements will appear in the returned list in the same order they appeared in {@code elements}.
   *
   * <p><b>Performance note:</b> According to our
   * benchmarking
   * on Open JDK 7, {@link #immutableSortedCopy} generally performs better (in both time and space)
   * than this method, and this method in turn generally performs better than copying the list and

		latencies = append(latencies, time.Since(start))
	}
	// Make sure to stop the timer before we wait! The load created above
	// is very heavy-weight and not easy to stop, so we could end up
	// confusing the benchmarking framework for small b.N.
	b.StopTimer()
	stop()

	// Disable the default */op metrics.
	// ns/op doesn't mean anything because it's an average, but we

	// Converting img to rgba is redundant for video-001.png, which is already
	// in the RGBA format, but for those copy/pasting this benchmark (but
	// changing the source image), the conversion ensures that we're still
	// benchmarking encoding an RGBA image.
	rgba := image.NewRGBA(bo)
	draw.Draw(rgba, bo, img, bo.Min, draw.Src)

	b.SetBytes(int64(bo.Dx() * bo.Dy() * 4))
	b.ReportAllocs()
	b.ResetTimer()
	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {

					if !ok {
						return nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("not a pod")
					}
					return pod.ObjectMeta.Labels, fields.Set{
						"metadata.name": pod.Name,
					}, nil
				},
			}

			// now we start benchmarking
			b.ResetTimer()
			for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
				list := tc.newListObjectFunc()
				if err := store.GetList(ctx, dir, storage.ListOptions{Predicate: pred, Recursive: true}, list); err != nil {

	c.err = transform.ErrEndOfSpan
	return false
}

// TODO: consider a similar special case for the fast majority lower case. This
// is a bit more involved so will require some more precise benchmarking to
// justify it.

type undUpperCaser struct{ transform.NopResetter }

// undUpperCaser implements the Transformer interface for doing an upper case