@GwtCompatible
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
public abstract class ForwardingMapEntry<K extends @Nullable Object, V extends @Nullable Object>
    extends ForwardingObject implements Map.Entry<K, V> {
  // TODO(lowasser): identify places where thread safety is actually lost

  /** Constructor for use by subclasses. */
  protected ForwardingMapEntry() {}

  @Override
  protected abstract Entry<K, V> delegate();

  @Override

  }

  private <T> TypeToken<Iterable<T>> anyIterableType() {
    return new TypeToken<Iterable<T>>() {};
  }

  @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") // TODO(cpovirk): Can we at least use Class<?> in some places?
  abstract static class TestTypeToInstanceMapGenerator
      implements TestMapGenerator<TypeToken, Object> {

    @Override
    public TypeToken<?>[] createKeyArray(int length) {

 * from uniform), and amortized since some operations can trigger a hash table resize.
 *
 * <p>As compared with {@link java.util.LinkedHashMap}, this structure places significantly reduced
 * load on the garbage collector by only using a constant number of internal objects.
 *
 * <p>This class should not be assumed to be universally superior to {@code

 * amortized since some operations can trigger a hash table resize.
 *
 * <p>This implementation consumes significantly less memory than {@code java.util.LinkedHashSet} or
 * even {@code java.util.HashSet}, and places considerably less load on the garbage collector. Like
 * {@code java.util.LinkedHashSet}, it offers insertion-order iteration, with identical behavior.
 *
 * <p>This class should not be assumed to be universally superior to {@code

@GwtCompatible
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
public abstract class ForwardingMapEntry<K extends @Nullable Object, V extends @Nullable Object>
    extends ForwardingObject implements Map.Entry<K, V> {
  // TODO(lowasser): identify places where thread safety is actually lost

  /** Constructor for use by subclasses. */
  protected ForwardingMapEntry() {}

  @Override
  protected abstract Entry<K, V> delegate();

  @Override

  }

  private <T> TypeToken<Iterable<T>> anyIterableType() {
    return new TypeToken<Iterable<T>>() {};
  }

  @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") // TODO(cpovirk): Can we at least use Class<?> in some places?
  abstract static class TestTypeToInstanceMapGenerator
      implements TestMapGenerator<TypeToken, Object> {

    @Override
    public TypeToken<?>[] createKeyArray(int length) {

    assertEquals(0, (int) ictim.getInstance(Integer.class));
    assertEquals(1, (int) ictim.getInstance(int.class));
  }

  @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") // TODO(cpovirk): Can we at least use Class<?> in some places?
  abstract static class TestClassToInstanceMapGenerator implements TestMapGenerator<Class, Impl> {

    @Override
    public Class<?>[] createKeyArray(int length) {
      return new Class<?>[length];
    }

 * amortized since some operations can trigger a hash table resize.
 *
 * <p>This implementation consumes significantly less memory than {@code java.util.LinkedHashSet} or
 * even {@code java.util.HashSet}, and places considerably less load on the garbage collector. Like
 * {@code java.util.LinkedHashSet}, it offers insertion-order iteration, with identical behavior.
 *
 * <p>This class should not be assumed to be universally superior to {@code

    assertEquals(0, (int) ictim.getInstance(Integer.class));
    assertEquals(1, (int) ictim.getInstance(int.class));
  }

  @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") // TODO(cpovirk): Can we at least use Class<?> in some places?
  abstract static class TestClassToInstanceMapGenerator implements TestMapGenerator<Class, Impl> {

    @Override
    public Class<?>[] createKeyArray(int length) {
      return new Class<?>[length];
    }