}
      }
      return map.values();
    }

    private ImmutableList<Method> getVisibleMethods(Class<?> cls) {
      // Don't use cls.getPackage() because it does nasty things like reading
      // a file.
      String visiblePackage = Reflection.getPackageName(cls);
      ImmutableList.Builder<Method> builder = ImmutableList.builder();

    tests themselves and not the code being tested that needs that access, though there's no
    obvious way to ensure that.

    We could consider arranging things so that only the tests we know need this would get
    the add-opens. Right now that doesn't seem worth the effort, though.
    -->
    <test.add.opens>
      --add-opens java.base/java.lang=ALL-UNNAMED

        }
      }
      return map.values();
    }

    private ImmutableList<Method> getVisibleMethods(Class<?> cls) {
      // Don't use cls.getPackage() because it does nasty things like reading
      // a file.
      String visiblePackage = Reflection.getPackageName(cls);
      ImmutableList.Builder<Method> builder = ImmutableList.builder();

type Arch struct {
	*obj.LinkArch
	// Map of instruction names to enumeration.
	Instructions map[string]obj.As
	// Map of register names to enumeration.
	Register map[string]int16
	// Table of register prefix names. These are things like R for R(0) and SPR for SPR(268).
	RegisterPrefix map[string]bool
	// RegisterNumber converts R(10) into arm.REG_R10.
	RegisterNumber func(string, int16) (int16, bool)
	// Instruction is a jump.

             * request. However the chances are slim and the
             * retry code should ensure the overall request
             * is serviced. The alternative complicates things
             * more than I think is worth it.
             */

            if (this.socket != null) {
                this.socket.close();
                this.socket = null;
            }

    // This lock protects the task so we can ensure that none of the template methods (startUp,
    // shutDown or runOneIteration) run concurrently with one another.
    // TODO(lukes): why don't we use ListenableFuture to sequence things? Then we could drop the
    // lock.
    private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();

    @WeakOuter
    final class Task implements Runnable {
      @Override
      public void run() {

      totalCount += count;
      return this;
    }

    AvlNode<E> add(
        Comparator<? super E> comparator, @ParametricNullness E e, int count, int[] result) {
      /*
       * It speeds things up considerably to unconditionally add count to totalCount here,
       * but that destroys failure atomicity in the case of count overflow. =(
       */
      int cmp = comparator.compare(e, getElement());

 *       returns {@code true}.
 *   <li>A class which implements {@code Comparable<UnrelatedType>} is very broken, and will cause
 *       undefined horrible things to happen in {@code Range}. For now, the Range API does not
 *       prevent its use, because this would also rule out all ungenerified (pre-JDK1.5) data types.
 *       <b>This may change in the future.</b>
 * </ul>
 *

  <id>settings</id>
  <name>Settings</name>
  <description>
    <![CDATA[
    <p>This is a reference for the user-specific configuration for Maven.</p>
    <p>Includes things that should not be distributed with the <code>pom.xml</code> file, such as developer identity, along with
    local settings, like proxy information.</p>

 *       returns {@code true}.
 *   <li>A class which implements {@code Comparable<UnrelatedType>} is very broken, and will cause
 *       undefined horrible things to happen in {@code Range}. For now, the Range API does not
 *       prevent its use, because this would also rule out all ungenerified (pre-JDK1.5) data types.
 *       <b>This may change in the future.</b>
 * </ul>
 *