this.table = table;
    this.filter = filter;
    this.containsZero = containsZero;
  }

  private static final int C1 = 0xcc9e2d51;
  private static final int C2 = 0x1b873593;

  /*
   * This method was rewritten in Java from an intermediate step of the Murmur hash function in
   * http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/source/browse/trunk/MurmurHash3.cpp, which contained the
   * following header:
   *

     * lying about the fields below on the grounds that we always initialize them just after the
     * constructor -- an example of the kind of lying that our hypothetical bytecode rewriter would
     * already have to deal with, thanks to DI frameworks that perform field and method injection,
     * frameworks like Android that define post-construct hooks like Activity.onCreate, etc.
     */

   * enough precision.
   */
  private static final long C1 = 0xcc9e2d51;
  private static final long C2 = 0x1b873593;

  /*
   * This method was rewritten in Java from an intermediate step of the Murmur hash function in
   * http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/source/browse/trunk/MurmurHash3.cpp, which contained the
   * following header:
   *

   * enough precision.
   */
  private static final long C1 = 0xcc9e2d51;
  private static final long C2 = 0x1b873593;

  /*
   * This method was rewritten in Java from an intermediate step of the Murmur hash function in
   * http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/source/browse/trunk/MurmurHash3.cpp, which contained the
   * following header:
   *

    this.table = table;
    this.filter = filter;
    this.containsZero = containsZero;
  }

  private static final int C1 = 0xcc9e2d51;
  private static final int C2 = 0x1b873593;

  /*
   * This method was rewritten in Java from an intermediate step of the Murmur hash function in
   * http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/source/browse/trunk/MurmurHash3.cpp, which contained the
   * following header:
   *

    // the `keys` and `values` arrays do not need to change. But because the "short hash" now has a
    // different number of bits, we must rewrite each element of `entries` so that its contribution
    // to the full hashcode reflects the change, and so that its `next` link corresponds to the new
    // linked list of entries with the new short hash.

    // the `keys` and `values` arrays do not need to change. But because the "short hash" now has a
    // different number of bits, we must rewrite each element of `entries` so that its contribution
    // to the full hashcode reflects the change, and so that its `next` link corresponds to the new
    // linked list of entries with the new short hash.