* need to be signalled because it is not known which if any of them have waiters (and hasWaiters
   * can't be used reliably because of a check-then-act race). With our Monitor guards, we only
   * signal the first active guard that is satisfied. But the corresponding thread may have already

                .readAttributes();
        assertThat(attributes.permissions()).containsExactly(OWNER_READ, OWNER_WRITE);
      }
    }
    out.close();

    // Check that source returns the right data
    assertTrue(Arrays.equals(data, source.read()));

    // Make sure that reset deleted the file
    out.reset();
    if (file != null) {
      assertFalse(file.exists());
    }

    AvlNode<E> root = rootReference.get();
    if (root == null) {
      return null;
    }
    AvlNode<E> node;
    if (range.hasLowerBound()) {
      // The cast is safe because of the hasLowerBound check.
      E endpoint = uncheckedCastNullableTToT(range.getLowerEndpoint());
      node = root.ceiling(comparator(), endpoint);
      if (node == null) {
        return null;
      }

    }
  }

  /*
   * Whenever an implementation uses `instanceof` on a parameter instance, the test has to know that
   * (so much for "black box") and try instances that both do and don't pass the check. The "don't"
   * half of that is more awkward to arrange...
   */
  private static <T> Iterable<T> iterable(final Collection<T> collection) {
    // return collection::iterator;
    return new Iterable<T>() {

        .putShort((short) 0x0000)
        .putShort((short) 0x0000);
    assertEquals(hashCode, hasher.hash().asLong());
  }

  public void testHashFloatIsStable() {
    // Just a spot check.  Better than nothing.
    Hasher hasher = HASH_FN.newHasher();
    hasher.putFloat(0x01000101f).putFloat(0f);
    assertEquals(0x49f9d18ee8ae1b28L, hasher.hash().asLong());

    hasher = HASH_FN.newHasher();

    }
  }

  /*
   * Whenever an implementation uses `instanceof` on a parameter instance, the test has to know that
   * (so much for "black box") and try instances that both do and don't pass the check. The "don't"
   * half of that is more awkward to arrange...
   */
  private static <T> Iterable<T> iterable(final Collection<T> collection) {
    // return collection::iterator;
    return new Iterable<T>() {

 *       scalability or other performance factors (see the separate "jtreg" tests for a set intended
 *       to check these for the most central aspects of functionality.) So, most tests use the
 *       smallest sensible numbers of threads, collection sizes, etc needed to check basic
 *       conformance.
 *   <li>The test classes currently do not declare inclusion in any particular package to simplify

  @Override
  public void clear() {
    if (needsAllocArrays()) {
      return;
    }
    this.firstEntry = ENDPOINT;
    this.lastEntry = ENDPOINT;
    // Either both arrays are null or neither is, but we check both to satisfy the nullness checker.
    if (predecessor != null && successor != null) {
      Arrays.fill(predecessor, 0, size(), 0);
      Arrays.fill(successor, 0, size(), 0);
    }
    super.clear();
  }

     * bad. We do the leadingZeros check to avoid the division below if at all possible.
     *
     * Otherwise, if b == Long.MIN_VALUE, then the only allowed values of a are 0 and 1. We take
     * care of all a < 0 with their own check, because in particular, the case a == -1 will
     * incorrectly pass the division check below.
     *
     * In all other cases, we check that either a is 0 or the result is consistent with division.

    /*
     * Safe because all we do is remove values for the key, not add them. (If we wanted to make sure
     * to call getCopy and removeAllNodes only with a true K, then we could check containsKey first.
     * But that check wouldn't eliminate the warnings.)
     */
    @SuppressWarnings({"unchecked", "nullness"})
    K castKey = (K) key;
    List<V> oldValues = getCopy(castKey);
    removeAllNodes(castKey);