* </ul>
 *
 * <p>Disadvantages compared to {@code ImmutableList<Integer>}:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>Can't be passed directly to methods that expect {@code Iterable}, {@code Collection}, or
 *       {@code List} (though the most common utilities do have replacements here, and there is a
 *       lazy {@link #asList} view).
 * </ul>
 *
 * @since 22.0
 */
@GwtCompatible
@Immutable

 * Benchmarks for comparing the various {@link HashCode#equals} methods.
 *
 * <p>Parameters for the benchmark are:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>size: the length of the byte array to hash
 *   <li>whereToDiffer: where in the array the bytes should differ
 *   <li>equalsImpl: which implementation of array equality to use
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p><b>Important note:</b> the primary goal of this benchmark is to ensure that varying {@code

 * and a primitive type and its corresponding wrapper type may map to different values.
 *
 * <h3>Implementations</h3>
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>{@link ImmutableClassToInstanceMap}
 *   <li>{@link MutableClassToInstanceMap}
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>To map a generic type to an instance of that type, use {@link
 * com.google.common.reflect.TypeToInstanceMap} instead.
 *

   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>{@linkplain LoadingCache#get(Object) awaiting the result of a pending load} rather than
   *       starting a redundant one
   *   <li>eliminating the error-prone caching boilerplate
   *   <li>tracking load {@linkplain #stats statistics}
   * </ul>
   *

   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>{@code view.equals(view)} evaluates to {@code true} (but any other {@code equals(...)}
   *       expression involving {@code view} will throw)
   *   <li>{@code hashCode()} does not throw
   *   <li>if {@code node} is re-added to the graph after having been removed, {@code view}'s
   *       behavior is undefined
   * </ul>
   *

 * second invocation, so implementors have made various choices, including:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>returning the same iterator again
 *   <li>throwing an exception of some kind
 *   <li>or the usual, <i>robust</i> behavior, which all known {@link Collection} implementations
 *       have, of returning a new, independent iterator
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>Because of this situation, any public method accepting an iterable should invoke the {@code

    visibility = Visibility.PUBLIC;
  }

  /**
   * Tests all top-level {@link Serializable} classes in the package. For a serializable Class
   * {@code C}:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>If {@code C} explicitly implements {@link Object#equals}, the deserialized instance will
   *       be checked to be equal to the instance before serialization.

 * actions taken by the java garbage collection system:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>invoking the {@code finalize} methods of unreachable objects
 *   <li>clearing weak references to unreachable referents
 *   <li>enqueuing weak references to unreachable referents in their reference queue
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>This class uses (possibly repeated) invocations of {@link java.lang.System#gc()} to cause

 *
 * <p>The {@code Packaging} class is an immutable value object, ensuring that once a packaging type is defined, it cannot be changed.</p>
 *
 * <h2>Standard Packaging Types</h2>
 * <ul>
 *     <li>{@code jar}: Packages the project as a Java Archive (JAR) file.</li>
 *     <li>{@code war}: Packages the project as a Web Application Archive (WAR) file.</li>

 * annotated with LargeTest.
 *
 * <p>Why use a custom annotation instead of {@code android.test.suitebuilder.annotation.Suppress}?
 * I'm not completely sure that this is the right choice, but it has various advantages:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>An annotation named just "Suppress" might someday be treated by a non-Android tool as a
 *       suppression. This would follow the precedent of many of our annotation processors, which