*/
        Runnable localTask = requireNonNull(task);
        task = null;
        localTask.run();
        return;
      }
      // Executor called reentrantly! Make sure that further calls don't overflow stack. Further
      // reentrant calls will see that their current thread is the same as the one set in
      // latestTaskQueue, and queue rather than calling execute() directly.

      setFutureSuccess.set(false);
      cancellationSuccess.set(false);
      finalResults.clear();
    }
    executor.shutdown();
  }

  // In a previous implementation this would cause a stack overflow after ~2000 futures chained
  // together.  Now it should only be limited by available memory (and time)
  public void testSetFuture_stackOverflow() {
    SettableFuture<String> orig = SettableFuture.create();

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.

  }

  /** There's no reason for the queueSize to ever be more than maxSize + 1 */
  private static int capAtMaximumSize(int queueSize, int maximumSize) {
    return min(queueSize - 1, maximumSize) + 1; // don't overflow
  }

   * 1}, this method has the identical effect to {@link #add(Object)}. This method is functionally
   * equivalent (except in the case of overflow) to the call {@code
   * addAll(Collections.nCopies(element, occurrences))}, which would presumably perform much more
   * poorly.
   *

      setFutureSuccess.set(false);
      cancellationSuccess.set(false);
      finalResults.clear();
    }
    executor.shutdown();
  }

  // In a previous implementation this would cause a stack overflow after ~2000 futures chained
  // together.  Now it should only be limited by available memory (and time)
  public void testSetFuture_stackOverflow() {
    SettableFuture<String> orig = SettableFuture.create();

      /*
       * 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());
      if (cmp < 0) {
        AvlNode<E> initLeft = left;
        if (initLeft == null) {
          result[0] = 0;

      int adjust = size() - 1;
      for (int i = 0; i < axes.size(); i++) {
        adjust *= 31;
        adjust = ~~adjust;
        // in GWT, we have to deal with integer overflow carefully
      }
      int hash = 1;
      for (Set<E> axis : axes) {
        hash = 31 * hash + (size() / axis.size() * axis.hashCode());

        hash = ~~hash;
      }
      hash += adjust;

   *       tasks -- even tasks that are not themselves {@code directExecutor} tasks.
   *   <li>If many such tasks are chained together (such as with {@code
   *       future.transform(...).transform(...).transform(...)....}), they may overflow the stack.
   *       (In simple cases, callers can avoid this by registering all tasks with the same {@link
   *       MoreExecutors#newSequentialExecutor} wrapper around {@code directExecutor()}. More

    i = 1 << 30;
    assertFalse(MinMaxPriorityQueue.isEvenLevel(i - 2));
    assertTrue(MinMaxPriorityQueue.isEvenLevel(i - 1));
    assertTrue(MinMaxPriorityQueue.isEvenLevel(i));

    // 1 << 31 is negative because of overflow, 1 << 31 - 1 is positive
    // since isEvenLevel adds 1, we need to do - 2.
    assertTrue(MinMaxPriorityQueue.isEvenLevel((1 << 31) - 2));
    assertTrue(MinMaxPriorityQueue.isEvenLevel(Integer.MAX_VALUE - 1));