* type. That said, we could *accept* a `@Nullable T[]` (which, given that we treat arrays as
   * covariant, would still permit a plain `T[]`) and return a plain `T[]`. But of course that would
   * require its own suppression, since it is also unsound. toArray(T[]) is just a mess from a
   * nullness perspective. The signature below at least has the virtue of being relatively simple.
   */
  @SuppressWarnings("nullness")

                                // We could process exclusions on relocated artifact details in the
                                // MavenMetadataSource.createArtifacts(..) step, BUT that would
                                // require resolving the POM from the repository very early on in
                                // the build.
                                continue;
                            }

	if err != nil {
		err = msgp.WrapError(err, "Finished")
		return
	}
	return
}

// MarshalMsg implements msgp.Marshaler
func (z *healingTracker) MarshalMsg(b []byte) (o []byte, err error) {
	o = msgp.Require(b, z.Msgsize())
	// map header, size 29
	// string "ID"
	o = append(o, 0xde, 0x0, 0x1d, 0xa2, 0x49, 0x44)
	o = msgp.AppendString(o, z.ID)
	// string "PoolIndex"

  }

  /**
   * Returns true if the given member is a method that overrides {@link Object#equals(Object)}.
   *
   * <p>The documentation for {@link Object#equals} says it should accept null, so don't require an
   * explicit {@code @NullableDecl} annotation (see <a
   * href="https://github.com/google/guava/issues/1819">#1819</a>).
   *

  }

  /**
   * Returns true if the given member is a method that overrides {@link Object#equals(Object)}.
   *
   * <p>The documentation for {@link Object#equals} says it should accept null, so don't require an
   * explicit {@code @Nullable} annotation (see <a
   * href="https://github.com/google/guava/issues/1819">#1819</a>).
   *

  for (const tensorflow::Edge* edge : control_edges) {
    graph->graph.RemoveControlEdge(edge);
  }
}

void TF_SetRequireShapeInferenceFns(TF_Graph* graph, bool require) {
  mutex_lock l(graph->mu);
  graph->refiner.set_require_shape_inference_fns(require);
}

void TF_ExtendSession(TF_Session* session, TF_Status* status) {
  ExtendSessionGraphHelper(session, status);
  session->extend_before_run = false;
}

      TypeVariable<?>[] typeVars = rawType.getTypeParameters();
      for (int i = 0; i < params.size(); i++) {
        TypeToken<?> paramType = type.resolveType(typeVars[i]);
        // We require all @Generates methods to either be parameter-less or accept non-null
        // values for their generic parameter types.
        Object argValue = generate(paramType);
        if (argValue == null) {

      TypeVariable<?>[] typeVars = rawType.getTypeParameters();
      for (int i = 0; i < params.size(); i++) {
        TypeToken<?> paramType = type.resolveType(typeVars[i]);
        // We require all @Generates methods to either be parameter-less or accept non-null
        // values for their generic parameter types.
        Object argValue = generate(paramType);
        if (argValue == null) {

 * supertype of `Function<A, B>` turns out to be massively more useful to callers in practice: They
 * want their output to be non-null in operations like `stream.map(myConverter)`, and we can
 * guarantee that as long as we also require the input type to be non-null[*] (which is a
 * requirement that existing callers already fulfill).
 *
 * Disclaimer: Part of the reason that callers are so well adapted to `Function<A, B>` may be that

   * reconstructed using public factory methods. This ensures that the implementation types remain
   * as implementation details.
   *
   * <p>Since the bimap is immutable, ImmutableBiMap doesn't require special logic for keeping the
   * bimap and its inverse in sync during serialization, the way AbstractBiMap does.
   */
  @J2ktIncompatible // serialization