*
   * <p>The resulting multimap's views have iterators that don't support {@code remove()}, but all
   * other methods are supported by the multimap and its views. When adding a key/value pair that
   * doesn't satisfy the predicate, multimap's {@code put()}, {@code putAll()}, and {@code
   * replaceValues()} methods throw an {@link IllegalArgumentException}.
   *

   *
   * <p>The resulting multimap's views have iterators that don't support {@code remove()}, but all
   * other methods are supported by the multimap and its views. When adding a key/value pair that
   * doesn't satisfy the predicate, multimap's {@code put()}, {@code putAll()}, and {@code
   * replaceValues()} methods throw an {@link IllegalArgumentException}.
   *

        if (providerUrl != null && providerUrl.startsWith("ldaps://")) {
            putEnv(env, Context.SECURITY_PROTOCOL, "ssl");
        }
        return env;
    }

    /**
     * Puts a key-value pair to the environment.
     *
     * @param env The environment.
     * @param key The key.
     * @param value The value.
     */

string to obtain a list of values and operands\n  // The regex addresses values with the plus or minus sign in front (+10, -20, etc)\n  const fragments = offset.split(/(\\+|\\-)/).map(frag => frag.trim());\n\n  // Detect if the offset string contains a pair of values or a single one\n  // they could be separated by comma or space\n  const divider = fragments.indexOf(\n    find(fragments, frag => frag.search(/,|\\s/) !== -1)\n  );\n\n  if (fragments[divider] && fragments[divider].indexOf(',') === -1) {\n...

// Sets `output` based on `proto`, which should be a serialized
// CppShapeInferenceResult::HandleData proto. `output` should be a resource
// or variant tensor.
// NOTE(skyewm): `proto` is passed a void*/size_t pair instead of a std::string
// because I couldn't get SWIG to work otherwise.
TF_CAPI_EXPORT extern void TF_SetHandleShapeAndType(TF_Graph* graph,
                                                    TF_Output output,

        newState);
  }

  private boolean compareAndUpdateState(State oldState, State newState) {
    return state.compareAndSet(oldState, newState);
  }

  // TODO(dpb): Should we use a pair of ArrayLists instead of an IdentityHashMap?
  private static final class CloseableList extends IdentityHashMap<AutoCloseable, Executor>
      implements Closeable {

		{"☻x\xe2\x98x", '�', len("☻x")},

		// Invalid rune values should never match.
		{"a☺b☻c☹d\xe2\x98�\xff�\xed\xa0\x80", -1, -1},
		{"a☺b☻c☹d\xe2\x98�\xff�\xed\xa0\x80", 0xD800, -1}, // Surrogate pair
		{"a☺b☻c☹d\xe2\x98�\xff�\xed\xa0\x80", utf8.MaxRune + 1, -1},

		// Test the cutover to bytealg.Index when it is triggered in
		// the middle of rune that contains consecutive runs of equal bytes.

Landroidx/startup/StartupException;
Landroidx/tracing/Trace;
Landroidx/tracing/TraceApi18Impl;
Lkotlin/ExceptionsKt;
Lkotlin/Function;
Lkotlin/Lazy;
Lkotlin/NoWhenBranchMatchedException;
Lkotlin/Pair;
Lkotlin/Result$Failure;
Lkotlin/Result;
Lkotlin/ResultKt;
Lkotlin/SynchronizedLazyImpl;
Lkotlin/TuplesKt;
Lkotlin/UNINITIALIZED_VALUE;
Lkotlin/UninitializedPropertyAccessException;
Lkotlin/Unit;

        newState);
  }

  private boolean compareAndUpdateState(State oldState, State newState) {
    return state.compareAndSet(oldState, newState);
  }

  // TODO(dpb): Should we use a pair of ArrayLists instead of an IdentityHashMap?
  private static final class CloseableList extends IdentityHashMap<AutoCloseable, Executor>
      implements Closeable {

AAIuB,MACR7C,QAAS,WAClB6C,EAAOmd,EAAWnd,EAAKpD,MAAO,IAC9BuhB,EAAUpe,EAAMC,EAAM4d,EAAM5d,KAI/B+d,EAASJ,IAAK5d,EAAM,gBAAgB,GAItC,OAAO6d,EAIR,MAAoB,iBAARjT,EACJrO,KAAKuE,KAAM,WACjBmd,EAASL,IAAKrhB,KAAMqO,KAIf4R,EAAQjgB,KAAM,SAAU+H,GAC9B,IAAIuZ,EAOJ,GAAK7d,QAAkBwC,IAAV8B,EAKZ,YAAc9B,KADdqb,EAAOI,EAAS1d,IAAKP,EAAM4K,IAEnBiT,OAMMrb,KADdqb,EAAOO,EAAUpe,EAAM4K,IAEfiT,OAIR,EAIDthB,KAAKuE,KAAM,WAGVmd,EAASL,IAAKrhB,KAAMqO,EAAKtG,MAExB,KAAMA,EAA0B,EAAnBrD,UAAUnB,OAAY,MAAM,IAG7Cye,WAAY,SAAU3T,GACrB,OAAOrO,KA...