}

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~
  public void testConcat_overflow_negative() {
    int dim1 = 1 << 16;
    int dim2 = 1 << 15;
    assertThat(dim1 * dim2).isLessThan(0);
    testConcatOverflow(dim1, dim2);
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~

  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~
  public void testConcat_overflow_negative() {
    int dim1 = 1 << 16;
    int dim2 = 1 << 15;
    assertThat(dim1 * dim2).isLessThan(0);
    testConcatOverflow(dim1, dim2);
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~

  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~
  public void testConcat_overflow_negative() {
    int dim1 = 1 << 16;
    int dim2 = 1 << 15;
    assertThat(dim1 * dim2).isLessThan(0);
    testConcatOverflow(dim1, dim2);
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~

  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~
  public void testConcat_overflow_negative() {
    int dim1 = 1 << 16;
    int dim2 = 1 << 15;
    assertThat(dim1 * dim2).isLessThan(0);
    testConcatOverflow(dim1, dim2);
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~

  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~
  public void testConcat_overflow_negative() {
    int dim1 = 1 << 16;
    int dim2 = 1 << 15;
    assertThat(dim1 * dim2).isLessThan(0);
    testConcatOverflow(dim1, dim2);
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // different overflow behavior; could probably be made to work by using ~~

      count += values.length();
      return this;
    }

    private void ensureRoomFor(int numberToAdd) {
      int newCount = count + numberToAdd; // TODO(kevinb): check overflow now?
      if (newCount > array.length) {
        array = Arrays.copyOf(array, expandedCapacity(array.length, newCount));
      }
    }

    // Unfortunately this is pasted from ImmutableCollection.Builder.

func isValidArithOperator(op string) bool {
	switch op {
	case opPlus:
	case opMinus:
	case opDivide:
	case opMultiply:
	case opModulo:
	default:
		return false
	}
	return true
}

// Overflow errors are ignored.
func intArithOp(op string, left, right int64) (int64, error) {
	switch op {
	case opPlus:
		return left + right, nil
	case opMinus:
		return left - right, nil
	case opDivide:

	instructions["JNS"] = x86.AJPL  /* alternate */
	instructions["JNZ"] = x86.AJNE  /* alternate */
	instructions["JO"] = x86.AJOS   /* alternate */
	instructions["JOC"] = x86.AJOC  /* overflow clear (OF = 0) */
	instructions["JOS"] = x86.AJOS  /* overflow set (OF = 1) */
	instructions["JP"] = x86.AJPS   /* alternate */
	instructions["JPC"] = x86.AJPC  /* parity clear (PF = 0) */
	instructions["JPE"] = x86.AJPS  /* alternate */

discard high bits upon overflow, and programs may rely on "wrap around".
</p>
<p>
For signed integers, the operations <code>+</code>,
<code>-</code>, <code>*</code>, <code>/</code>, and <code>&lt;&lt;</code> may legally
overflow and the resulting value exists and is deterministically defined
by the signed integer representation, the operation, and its operands.

    accumulator.add(ONE_VALUE, OTHER_ONE_VALUE);
    for (int power = 1; power < Long.SIZE - 1; power++) {
      accumulator.addAll(accumulator.snapshot());
    }
    // Should overflow without throwing.
    accumulator.addAll(accumulator.snapshot());
    assertThat(accumulator.count()).isLessThan(0L);
  }

  public void testXStats() {