<!-- Checks that the order of modifiers conforms to the suggestions in the
    Java Language specification, sections 8.1.1, 8.3.1 and 8.4.3. It is not that
    the standard is perfect, but having a consistent order makes the code more
    readable and no other order is compellingly better than the standard.
    The correct order is:
            public
            protected
            private
            abstract

    if (expectedSize < 3) {
      checkNonnegative(expectedSize, "expectedSize");
      return expectedSize + 1;
    }
    if (expectedSize < Ints.MAX_POWER_OF_TWO) {
      // This seems to be consistent across JDKs. The capacity argument to HashMap and LinkedHashMap
      // ends up being used to compute a "threshold" size, beyond which the internal table

    if (expectedSize < 3) {
      checkNonnegative(expectedSize, "expectedSize");
      return expectedSize + 1;
    }
    if (expectedSize < Ints.MAX_POWER_OF_TWO) {
      // This seems to be consistent across JDKs. The capacity argument to HashMap and LinkedHashMap
      // ends up being used to compute a "threshold" size, beyond which the internal table

   *       traffic to {@code charlie}, rather than letting {@code bravo} keep its traffic.
   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_hashing">Wikipedia article on
   * consistent hashing</a> for more information.
   */
  public static int consistentHash(HashCode hashCode, int buckets) {
    return consistentHash(hashCode.padToLong(), buckets);
  }

  /**

		wantOk       bool
	}{
		{
			name:         "consistent",
			m:            metaCacheEntries{inputSerialized[0], inputSerialized[0], inputSerialized[0], inputSerialized[0]},
			r:            metadataResolutionParams{dirQuorum: 4, objQuorum: 4, strict: false},
			wantSelected: &inputSerialized[0],
			wantOk:       true,
		},
		{
			name:         "consistent-strict",

   *     IOException}.
   */
  /*
   * The proper capitalization would be "swallowIoException." However:
   *
   * - It might be preferable to be consistent with the JDK precedent (which they stuck with even
   *   for "UncheckedIOException").
   *
   * - If we change the name, some of our callers break because our Android Lint ParameterName check

 *
 * <p>Each of the {@code standard} methods, where appropriate, uses the set's comparator (or the
 * natural ordering of the elements, if there is no comparator) to test element equality. As a
 * result, if the comparator is not consistent with equals, some of the standard implementations may
 * violate the {@code Set} contract.
 *
 * <p>The {@code standard} methods and the collection views they return are not guaranteed to be

import javax.net.ssl.SSLException
import javax.net.ssl.SSLSession
import okhttp3.internal.canParseAsIpAddress
import okhttp3.internal.toCanonicalHost
import okio.utf8Size

/**
 * A HostnameVerifier consistent with [RFC 2818][rfc_2818].
 *
 * [rfc_2818]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2818.txt
 */
@Suppress("NAME_SHADOWING")
object OkHostnameVerifier : HostnameVerifier {
  private const val ALT_DNS_NAME = 2

 *
 * <p>Each of the {@code standard} methods, where appropriate, uses the set's comparator (or the
 * natural ordering of the elements, if there is no comparator) to test element equality. As a
 * result, if the comparator is not consistent with equals, some of the standard implementations may
 * violate the {@code Set} contract.
 *
 * <p>The {@code standard} methods and the collection views they return are not guaranteed to be

 * all cases, this implementation uses {@link Comparable#compareTo} or {@link Comparator#compare}
 * instead of {@link Object#equals} to determine equivalence of instances.
 *
 * <p><b>Warning:</b> The comparison must be <i>consistent with equals</i> as explained by the
 * {@link Comparable} class specification. Otherwise, the resulting multiset will violate the {@link
 * Collection} contract, which is specified in terms of {@link Object#equals}.
 *