Appendable secretlyAWriter = new StringWriter();
    result = CharStreams.asWriter(secretlyAWriter);
    assertSame(secretlyAWriter, result);
  }

  // CharStreams.copy has type specific optimizations for Readers,StringBuilders and Writers

  public void testCopy() throws IOException {
    StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
    long copied =
        CharStreams.copy(

    Appendable secretlyAWriter = new StringWriter();
    result = CharStreams.asWriter(secretlyAWriter);
    assertSame(secretlyAWriter, result);
  }

  // CharStreams.copy has type specific optimizations for Readers,StringBuilders and Writers

  public void testCopy() throws IOException {
    StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
    long copied =
        CharStreams.copy(

import java.nio.CharBuffer;
import java.util.Random;
import org.jspecify.annotations.NullUnmarked;

/**
 * Benchmarks for {@link CharStreams#copy}.
 *
 * <p>{@link CharStreams#copy} has type specific optimizations for various common Appendable and
 * Reader implementations, this compares the performance of the different options.
 */
// These benchmarks allocate a lot of data so use a large heap
@VmOptions({"-Xms12g", "-Xmx12g", "-d64"})

- **Template Method** - Resource traversal utilities with customizable handlers
- **Utility Classes** - All core functionality exposed through static utility methods for easy access

### Performance Optimizations
- **Caching** - Bean descriptors and reflection metadata are cached for improved performance
- **Lazy initialization** - Resources and expensive operations are initialized only when needed  

   * even to an intermediate buffer) should be considerably more efficient than potentially
   * copying the CharSequence to a String and then calling getBytes(Charset) on that String, in
   * reality there are optimizations that make the getBytes(Charset) approach considerably faster,
   * at least for commonly used charsets like UTF-8.
   */

  @Override
  @CanIgnoreReturnValue
  public final Hasher putByte(byte b) {

    checkElementIndex(index, size);
    // requireNonNull is safe because we guarantee that the first `size` elements are non-null.
    return (E) requireNonNull(array[index]);
  }

  // TODO(lowasser): benchmark optimizations for equals() and see if they're worthwhile

  // redeclare to help optimizers with b/310253115
  @SuppressWarnings("RedundantOverride")
  @Override
  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible
    Object writeReplace() {

package jcifs.smb1.smb1;

import jcifs.smb1.Config;

/**
 * Buffer cache implementation for SMB1 protocol operations.
 * Manages a pool of byte buffers to reduce garbage collection overhead.
 *
 * Performance optimizations:
 * - Uses ConcurrentLinkedQueue for O(1) operations
 * - Lock-free operations for better concurrency
 * - Proper buffer validation and limits
 */
public class BufferCache {

    /**

In all these examples, the solution is the same:
use explicit synchronization.
</p>

<h2 id="badcompiler">Incorrect compilation</h2>

<p>
The Go memory model restricts compiler optimizations as much as it does Go programs.
Some compiler optimizations that would be valid in single-threaded programs are not valid in all Go programs.
In particular, a compiler must not introduce writes that do not exist in the original program,

        assertTrue("Boundary value tests should be fast", true);
    }

    public void test_performance_optimization() {
        // Verify that performance optimizations are working
        long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        try {
            dataIndexHelper.crawl("performance-test");
        } catch (Exception e) {
            // Expected
        }

            optimizations. Setting the variable to 0 or unsetting it will
            disable the optimizations.
        *   These optimizations can yield slightly different numerical results
            from when they are off due to floating-point round-off errors from
            different computation approaches and orders.
        *   To verify that the optimizations are on, look for a message with