u, ok, err := globalIAMSys.CheckKey(r.Context(), accessKey)
		if err != nil {
			return auth.Credentials{}, false, ErrIAMNotInitialized
		}
		if !ok {
			// Credentials could be valid but disabled - return a different
			// error in such a scenario.
			if u.Credentials.Status == auth.AccountOff {
				return cred, false, ErrAccessKeyDisabled
			}
			return cred, false, ErrInvalidAccessKeyID

      }
      // We could delegate to super now but it would still box too much
      if (!(object instanceof List)) {
        return false;
      }
      List<?> that = (List<?>) object;
      if (this.size() != that.size()) {
        return false;
      }
      int i = parent.start;
      // Since `that` is very likely RandomAccess we could avoid allocating this iterator...

      }
      // We could delegate to super now but it would still box too much
      if (!(object instanceof List)) {
        return false;
      }
      List<?> that = (List<?>) object;
      if (this.size() != that.size()) {
        return false;
      }
      int i = parent.start;
      // Since `that` is very likely RandomAccess we could avoid allocating this iterator...

	n++
}
i := *p
*q = 1
</pre>

<p>
If <code>list</code> pointed to a cyclic list,
then the original program would never access <code>*p</code> or <code>*q</code>,
but the rewritten program would.
(Moving `*p` ahead would be safe if the compiler can prove `*p` will not panic;
moving `*q` ahead would also require the compiler proving that no other
goroutine can access `*q`.)
</p>

<p>

      // It is possible due to races that we are currently in the expected state even though we
      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

   * to stop requests. You could poll for lifecycle changes in a work loop:
   *
   * <pre>
   *   public void run() {
   *     while ({@link #isRunning()}) {
   *       // perform a unit of work
   *     }
   *   }
   * </pre>
   *
   * <p>...or you could respond to stop requests by implementing {@link #triggerShutdown()}, which

    /*
     * In principle, a Multimap implementation could add e3 first before failing on the null. But
     * that seems unlikely enough to be worth complicating the test over, especially if there's any
     * chance that a permissive test could mask a bug.
     */
    expectUnchanged();
    // Be extra thorough in case internal state was corrupted by the expected null.

   *     the size method
   */
  public static <T extends @Nullable Object> Collection<T> misleadingSizeCollection(int delta) {
    // It would be nice to be able to return a real concurrent
    // collection like ConcurrentLinkedQueue, so that e.g. concurrent
    // iteration would work, but that would not be GWT-compatible.
    // We are not "just" inheriting from ArrayList here as this doesn't work for J2kt.
    return new AbstractList<T>() {

      val toVerify = result[result.size - 1] as X509Certificate

      // If this cert has been signed by a trusted cert, use that. Add the trusted certificate to
      // the end of the chain unless it's already present. (That would happen if the first
      // certificate in the chain is itself a self-signed and trusted CA certificate.)
      val trustedCert = trustRootIndex.findByIssuerAndSignature(toVerify)
      if (trustedCert != null) {

 * such custom interfaces directly; they are implemented only in subclasses. Therefore, forwarding
 * {@code equals} would break symmetry, as the forwarding object might consider itself equal to the
 * object being tested, but the reverse could not be true. This behavior is consistent with the
 * JDK's collection wrappers, such as {@link java.util.Collections#unmodifiableCollection}. Use an