* aren't stripping UnsafeComparator today? Should we have Proguard configuration for it?)
         *
         * - if Unsafe is removed entirely from JDKs (or already absent in some unusual environment
         * today). TODO: b/392974826 - Check for the existence of Unsafe and its methods
         * reflectively before attempting to access UnsafeComparator. Or, better yet, allow

  private static final byte[] ARRAY234 = {(byte) 2, (byte) 3, (byte) 4};

  private static final byte[] VALUES = {Byte.MIN_VALUE, -1, 0, 1, Byte.MAX_VALUE};

  // We need to test that our method behaves like the JDK method.
  @SuppressWarnings("InlineMeInliner")
  public void testHashCode() {
    for (byte value : VALUES) {
      assertThat(Bytes.hashCode(value)).isEqualTo(Byte.hashCode(value));
    }
  }

        Long.MIN_VALUE,
        Long.MAX_VALUE
      };

  private static final float[] VALUES = Floats.concat(NUMBERS, new float[] {NaN});

  // We need to test that our method behaves like the JDK method.
  @SuppressWarnings("InlineMeInliner")
  public void testHashCode() {
    for (float value : VALUES) {
      assertThat(Floats.hashCode(value)).isEqualTo(Float.hashCode(value));
    }
  }

  private static final int GREATEST = Integer.MAX_VALUE;

  private static final int[] VALUES = {LEAST, (int) -1, (int) 0, (int) 1, GREATEST};

  // We need to test that our method behaves like the JDK method.
  @SuppressWarnings("InlineMeInliner")
  public void testHashCode() {
    for (int value : VALUES) {
      assertThat(Ints.hashCode(value)).isEqualTo(Integer.hashCode(value));
    }
  }

        Long.MIN_VALUE,
        Long.MAX_VALUE
      };

  private static final float[] VALUES = Floats.concat(NUMBERS, new float[] {NaN});

  // We need to test that our method behaves like the JDK method.
  @SuppressWarnings("InlineMeInliner")
  public void testHashCode() {
    for (float value : VALUES) {
      assertThat(Floats.hashCode(value)).isEqualTo(Float.hashCode(value));
    }
  }

 * finalization to happen. However, a call to {@code System.gc()} is specified to be no more than a
 * hint, so this technique may fail at the whim of the JDK implementation, for example if a user
 * specified the JVM flag {@code -XX:+DisableExplicitGC}. But in practice, it works very well for
 * ordinary tests.
 *

   * elements will appear in the returned list in the same order they appeared in {@code elements}.
   *
   * <p><b>Performance note:</b> According to our
   * benchmarking
   * on Open JDK 7, {@link #immutableSortedCopy} generally performs better (in both time and space)
   * than this method, and this method in turn generally performs better than copying the list and
   * calling {@link Collections#sort(List)}.
   */

META-INF/MANIFEST.MF Manifest-Version: 1.0 Implementation-Title: maven-wrapper Implementation-Version: 0.5.6 Archiver-Version: Provisio Archiver Built-By: manfred Specification-Title: maven-wrapper Implementation-Vendor-Id: io.takari Created-By: Takari Inc. Build-Jdk: 1.8.0_232 Specification-Version: 0.5.6 META-INF/maven/io.takari/maven-wrapper/pom.properties version=0.5.6 groupId=io.takari artifactId=maven-wrapper org/apache/maven/wrapper/BootstrapMainStarter.class package org.apache.maven.wrapper; public synchronized...

 *
 * <p>An instance of this class is serializable if its reference is absent or is a serializable
 * object.
 *
 * <p><b>Comparison to {@code java.util.Optional} (JDK 8 and higher):</b> A new {@code Optional}
 * class was added for Java 8. The two classes are extremely similar, but incompatible (they cannot
 * share a common supertype). <i>All</i> known differences are listed either here or with the

*----+------+------+
| <<<*>>> | Java system properties (see {{{https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#getProperties()}JDK reference}}) | <<<$\{user.home\}>>>\
 | | <<<$\{java.home\}>>> |
*----+------+------+
| <<<*>>> | User properties | <<<$\{foo\}>>> |
*----+------+------+
| <<<env.*>>>\