}

  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible // threads
  public void testOverflowTimeout() throws Exception {
    // First, sanity check that naive multiplication would really overflow to a negative number:
    long nanosPerSecond = NANOSECONDS.convert(1, SECONDS);
    assertThat(nanosPerSecond * Long.MAX_VALUE).isLessThan(0L);

 * test with reference to the same "lock-like object", and then their interactions with that object
 * are choreographed via the various methods on this class.
 *
 * <p>A "lock-like object" is really any object that may be used for concurrency control. If the
 * {@link #callAndAssertBlocks} method is ever called in a test, the lock-like object must have a

  C endpoint() {
    return endpoint;
  }

  @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") // catching CCE
  @Override
  public boolean equals(@CheckForNull Object obj) {
    if (obj instanceof Cut) {
      // It might not really be a Cut<C>, but we'll catch a CCE if it's not
      Cut<C> that = (Cut<C>) obj;
      try {
        int compareResult = compareTo(that);
        return compareResult == 0;

        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableDoubleArray.of(1, 3))
        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableDoubleArray.of(1, 2, 3))
        .testEquals();
  }

  /**
   * This is probably a weird and hacky way to test what we're really trying to test, but hey, it
   * caught a bug.
   */
  public void testTrimmed() {
    ImmutableDoubleArray iia = ImmutableDoubleArray.of(0, 1, 3);
    assertDoesntActuallyTrim(iia);

  //    possible to the thing right before the try. You could have
  //    guard.leave(), but that's a little odd as well because the
  //    guard doesn't have anything to do with leaving. You can't
  //    really enforce that the guard you're leaving is the same one
  //    you entered with, and it doesn't actually matter.
  //
  // 2. Since you can enter the monitor without a guard at all, some

        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableLongArray.of(1, 3))
        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableLongArray.of(1, 2, 3))
        .testEquals();
  }

  /**
   * This is probably a weird and hacky way to test what we're really trying to test, but hey, it
   * caught a bug.
   */
  public void testTrimmed() {
    ImmutableLongArray iia = ImmutableLongArray.of(0, 1, 3);
    assertDoesntActuallyTrim(iia);

   * message must mention two values that were associated with the duplicate key in two different
   * calls to Builder.put (though we don't really care *which* two values if there were more than
   * two). These considerations lead us to have a field of type DuplicateKey in the Builder, which

   *
   * <p><b>{@code Stream} equivalent:</b> {@code
   * stream.filter(predicate).findFirst().orElse(defaultValue)}
   *
   * @since 7.0
   */
  // The signature we really want here is...
  //
  // <T extends @Nullable Object> @JointlyNullable T find(
  //     Iterable<? extends T> iterable,
  //     Predicate<? super T> predicate,
  //     @JointlyNullable T defaultValue);
  //

    if (reference == null) {
      throw new NullPointerException(lenientFormat(errorMessageTemplate, p1, p2, p3, p4));
    }
    return reference;
  }

  /*
   * All recent hotspots (as of 2009) *really* like to have the natural code
   *
   * if (guardExpression) {
   *    throw new BadException(messageExpression);
   * }
   *

        Be aware, though: most feature requests are not accepted, even if they're suggested by
        a full-time Guava team member. [Feedback](https://stackoverflow.com/a/4543114) from our
        users indicates that they really appreciate Guava's high power-to-weight ratio. It's
        important to us to keep Guava as easy to use and understand as we can. That means boiling