exec.awaitTermination(100, MILLISECONDS);
  }

  /**
   * Tests that all listeners complete, even if they were added before or after the future was
   * finishing. Also acts as a concurrency test to make sure the locking is done correctly when a
   * future is finishing so that no listeners can be lost.
   */
  public void testAllListenersCompleteSuccessfully()
      throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {

   * </ul>
   *
   * A specific warning about locking: Code that executes user-supplied tasks, such as {@code
   * ListenableFuture} listeners, should take care not to do so while holding a lock. Additionally,
   * as a further line of defense, prefer not to perform any locking inside a task that will be run

    // way for it to return a false negative would be for the target value to jump around in the map
    // such that none of the subsequent iterations observed it, despite the fact that at every point
    // in time it was present somewhere int the map. This becomes increasingly unlikely as
    // CONTAINS_VALUE_RETRIES increases, though without locking it is theoretically possible.

    MemoizingSupplier(Supplier<T> delegate) {
      this.delegate = checkNotNull(delegate);
    }

    @Override
    @ParametricNullness
    public T get() {
      // A 2-field variant of Double Checked Locking.
      if (!initialized) {
        synchronized (this) {
          if (!initialized) {
            T t = delegate.get();
            value = t;
            initialized = true;
            return t;

 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>for an unnested {@code lock()} and {@code unlock()}, a cycle detecting lock takes 38ns as
 *       opposed to the 24ns taken by a plain lock.
 *   <li>for nested locking, the cost increases with the depth of the nesting:
 *       <ul>
 *         <li>2 levels: average of 64ns per lock()/unlock()
 *         <li>3 levels: average of 77ns per lock()/unlock()

   * MoreExecutors#newDirectExecutorService} and subject to the same constraints.
   *
   * <p>Although all tasks are immediately executed in the thread that submitted the task, this
   * {@code ExecutorService} imposes a small locking overhead on each task submission in order to
   * implement shutdown and termination behavior.
   *
   * <p>Because of the nature of single-thread execution, the methods {@code scheduleAtFixedRate}

    assertEquals(4, list.lastIndexOf("b"));
  }

  public void testCopyOfDefensiveCopy() {
    // Depending on JDK version, either toArray() or toArray(T[]) may be called... use this class
    // rather than mocking to ensure that one of those methods is called.
    class TestArrayList<E> extends ArrayList<E> {
      boolean toArrayCalled = false;

      @Override
      public Object[] toArray() {
        toArrayCalled = true;

    // way for it to return a false negative would be for the target value to jump around in the map
    // such that none of the subsequent iterations observed it, despite the fact that at every point
    // in time it was present somewhere int the map. This becomes increasingly unlikely as
    // CONTAINS_VALUE_RETRIES increases, though without locking it is theoretically possible.

 *       create a "fake" converter for a unit test. It is unnecessary (and confusing) to <i>mock</i>
 *       the {@code Converter} type using a mocking framework.
 *   <li>Extend this class and implement its {@link #doForward} and {@link #doBackward} methods.
 *   <li><b>Java 8+ users:</b> you may prefer to pass two lambda expressions or method references to

  private volatile @Nullable Logger logger;

  LazyLogger(Class<?> ownerOfLogger) {
    this.loggerName = ownerOfLogger.getName();
  }

  Logger get() {
    /*
     * We use double-checked locking. We could the try racy single-check idiom, but that would
     * depend on Logger not contain mutable state.
     *
     * We could use Suppliers.memoizingSupplier here, but I micro-optimized to this implementation