Object key = new Object();
    assertNotNull(cache.getUnchecked(key));

    CacheTesting.simulateValueReclamation(cache, key);

    // this blocks if computation can't deal with partially-collected values
    assertNotNull(cache.getUnchecked(key));
    assertEquals(1, cache.size());
    assertEquals(2, countingLoader.getCount());

    CacheTesting.simulateValueReclamation(cache, key);

  public int hashCode() {
    int hashCode = 1;
    int n = size();
    for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
      hashCode = 31 * hashCode + get(i).hashCode();

      hashCode = ~~hashCode;
      // needed to deal with GWT integer overflow
    }
    return hashCode;
  }

  /*
   * Serializes ImmutableLists as their logical contents. This ensures that

   *
   * if (guardExpression) {
   *    throw new BadException(badMsg(...));
   * }
   *
   * The alternative natural refactorings into void or Exception-returning methods are much slower.
   * This is a big deal - we're talking factors of 2-8 in microbenchmarks, not just 10-20%. (This is
   * a hotspot optimizer bug, which should be fixed, but that's a separate, big project).
   *

    future2 = null;

    /*
     * Futures should be collected even if combiner never runs. This is kind of a silly test, since
     * the combiner is almost certain to hold its own reference to the futures, and a real app would
     * hold a reference to the executor and thus to the combiner. What we really care about is that
     * the futures are released once the combiner is done running. But we happen to provide this

   * permits? As explained above, there is no unique answer. If we are primarily interested to deal
   * with underutilization, then we want stored permits to be given out /faster/ than fresh ones,
   * because underutilization = free resources for the taking. If we are primarily interested to
   * deal with overflow, then stored permits could be given out /slower/ than fresh ones. Thus, we

   * next} field is lazily initialized. The type of that field would be {@code @Nullable T}, and the
   * code would be responsible for populating a "real" {@code T} (which might still be the value
   * {@code null}!) before returning it to callers. Depending on how the code is structured, a
   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem

        }

        this.sealClientKey = deriveKey(mk, C2S_SEAL_CONSTANT);
        this.sealClientHandle = Crypto.getArcfour(this.sealClientKey);
        if ( log.isDebugEnabled() ) {
            log.debug("Seal key is " + Hexdump.toHexString(this.sealClientKey));
        }

        this.sealServerKey = deriveKey(mk, S2C_SEAL_CONSTANT);
        this.sealServerHandle = Crypto.getArcfour(this.sealServerKey);

 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */

package com.google.common.util.concurrent;

import static org.mockito.Answers.CALLS_REAL_METHODS;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.doReturn;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.mock;

import com.google.common.base.Function;
import com.google.common.collect.ForwardingObject;

    suite.addTestSuite(MutableTypeToInstanceMapTest.class);

    suite.addTest(
        MapTestSuiteBuilder.using(
                new TestTypeToInstanceMapGenerator() {
                  // Other tests will verify what real, warning-free usage looks like
                  // but here we have to do some serious fudging
                  @Override
                  @SuppressWarnings({"unchecked", "rawtypes"})

   * than a one-character array containing the character itself. This enables the escaping algorithm
   * to perform more efficiently.
   *
   * <p>An escaper is expected to be able to deal with any {@code char} value, so this method should
   * not throw any exceptions.
   *
   * @param c the character to escape if necessary
   * @return the replacement characters, or {@code null} if no escaping was needed
   */