}

  /**
   * Returns a "Java hash code" for this {@code HashCode} instance; this is well-defined (so, for
   * example, you can safely put {@code HashCode} instances into a {@code HashSet}) but is otherwise
   * probably not what you want to use.
   */
  @Override
  public final int hashCode() {
    // If we have at least 4 bytes (32 bits), just take the first 4 bytes. Since this is

   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>due to case-folding of some non-ASCII characters (which does not occur in {@link
   * String#equalsIgnoreCase}). However in almost all cases that ASCII strings are used, the author
   * probably wanted the behavior provided by this method rather than the subtle and sometimes
   * surprising behavior of {@code toUpperCase()} and {@code toLowerCase()}.
   *
   * @since 16.0
   */

      try {
        return target.contains(t);
      } catch (NullPointerException | ClassCastException e) {
        return false;
      }
    }

    @Override
    /*
     * We should probably not have implemented equals() at all, but given that we did, we can't
     * provide a better implementation than the input Collection, at least without dramatic changes

          && hashCodeInsensitiveToArgReference(
              factory, args, i, generateDummyArg(param, newFreshValueGenerator()))) {
        // If the implementation uses identityHashCode(), referential equality is
        // probably intended. So no point in using an equal-but-different factory argument.
        // We check twice to avoid confusion caused by accidental hash collision.
        equalArgs.set(i, shouldBeEqualArg);
      }
    }

     * accept that many elements.
     *
     * <p>This gets overridden in ImmutableSetMultimap.Builder to only trust the size of {@code
     * values} if it is a Set and therefore probably already deduplicated.
     */
    int expectedValueCollectionSize(int defaultExpectedValues, Iterable<?> values) {
      if (values instanceof Collection<?>) {
        Collection<?> collection = (Collection<?>) values;

        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableIntArray.of(1, 3))
        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableIntArray.of(1, 2, 3))
        .testEquals();
  }

  /**
   * This is probably a weird and hacky way to test what we're really trying to test, but hey, it
   * caught a bug.
   */
  public void testTrimmed() {
    ImmutableIntArray iia = ImmutableIntArray.of(0, 1, 3);

        <version>${j2objc.version}</version>
      </dependency>
      <!--
      We moved away from using dependencyManagement for test-only deps because of https://github.com/google/guava/issues/6654.
      We could probably have resumed it after https://github.com/google/guava/pull/6664.
      But it's always weird that published poms reference test-only libraries at all, so I'm not in any rush to do so.
      -->
    </dependencies>

   *
   * 1. b/192354773 in our checker affects toArray declarations.
   *
   * 2. `other[size] = null` is unsound. We could "fix" this by requiring callers to pass in an
   * array with a nullable element type. But probably they usually want an array with a non-nullable
   * type. That said, we could *accept* a `@Nullable T[]` (which, given that we treat arrays as

        <version>${j2objc.version}</version>
      </dependency>
      <!--
      We moved away from using dependencyManagement for test-only deps because of https://github.com/google/guava/issues/6654.
      We could probably have resumed it after https://github.com/google/guava/pull/6664.
      But it's always weird that published poms reference test-only libraries at all, so I'm not in any rush to do so.
      -->
    </dependencies>

       * that behavior is undefined when the backing map is modified through another API. (It even
       * permits us to throw IllegalStateException. Maybe we should have done that, but we probably
       * shouldn't change now for fear of breaking people.)
       */
      return (lastKnownIndex == -1) ? unsafeNull() : value(lastKnownIndex);
    }

    @Override
    @ParametricNullness