* 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.
   *

         */
        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.

  }

  /** 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
  }

            }
            final int errorCode = Encdec.dec_uint32le(BUF, 9) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
            if (resp.command == ServerMessageBlock.SMB_COM_READ_ANDX && (errorCode == 0 || errorCode == 0x80000005)) { // overflow indicator normal for pipe
                final SmbComReadAndXResponse r = (SmbComReadAndXResponse) resp;
                int off = HEADER_LENGTH;
                /* WordCount thru dataOffset always 27 */

   * 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.
   *

      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;

      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.

   *       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

      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();