d2[1], d2[0] = 0, 0 // arm64:"STP",-"MOVB",-"MOVH"
}

func loadstore(p, q *[4]uint8) {
	// amd64:"MOVL",-"MOVB"
	// arm64:"MOVWU",-"MOVBU"
	x0, x1, x2, x3 := q[0], q[1], q[2], q[3]
	// amd64:"MOVL",-"MOVB"
	// arm64:"MOVW",-"MOVB"
	p[0], p[1], p[2], p[3] = x0, x1, x2, x3
}

type S1 struct {
	a, b int16
}

func loadstore2(p, q *S1) {
	// amd64:"MOVL",-"MOVWLZX"
	// arm64:"MOVWU",-"MOVH"

              )
          ]
      )
      def main(self, x):
        x1 = nn_ops.conv2d(x, self.w, padding='SAME')
        x2, _ = while_loop_ops.while_loop(
            self.condition, self.body, [x, self.w]
        )
        result = x1 + x2
        return {'output': result}

		{`package p15

		var y1 = f1()

		func f1() int { return g1() }
		func g1() int { f1(); return x1 }

		var x1 = 0

		var y2 = f2()

		func f2() int { return g2() }
		func g2() int { return x2 }

		var x2 = 0`, []string{
			"x1 = 0", "y1 = f1()", "x2 = 0", "y2 = f2()",
		}},
	}

	for _, test := range tests {
		info := Info{}

        }
    }

    @Issue("GRADLE-2555")
    void "batched up conflicts with conflicted parent and child"() {
        /*
        Dependency tree:

        a->c1
        b->c2->x1
        d->x1
        f->x2

        Everything is resolvable but not x2

        Scenario:
         - We have batched up conflicts
         - root of one conflicted version is also conflicted

	runGo("tool", "compile", "-importcfg="+importcfgfile, "-symabis", "symabis", "-p=main", "-o", "x1.o", "main.go")
	runGo("tool", "asm", "-p=main", "-o", "x2.o", "x.s")
	run(cc, append(cflags, "-c", "-o", "x3.o", "x.c")...)
	runGo("tool", "pack", "c", "x.a", "x1.o", "x2.o", "x3.o")

	// Now attempt to link using the internal linker.

		{`package p15

		var y1 = f1()

		func f1() int { return g1() }
		func g1() int { f1(); return x1 }

		var x1 = 0

		var y2 = f2()

		func f2() int { return g2() }
		func g2() int { return x2 }

		var x2 = 0`, []string{
			"x1 = 0", "y1 = f1()", "x2 = 0", "y2 = f2()",
		}},
	}

	for _, test := range tests {
		info := Info{}

    /*
     * For an explanation of the basic principle behind this check, see
     * https://stackoverflow.com/a/35754308/28465
     *
     * In that explanation's notation, our `overlap` check would be `x1 < y2 && y1 < x2`. We've
     * flipped one part of the check so that we're using "less than" in both cases (rather than a
     * mix of "less than" and "greater than"). We've also switched to "strictly less than" rather

	// Check that DeepEqual can look at unexported fields.
	x1 := UnexpT{map[int]int{1: 2}}
	x2 := UnexpT{map[int]int{1: 2}}
	if !DeepEqual(&x1, &x2) {
		t.Error("DeepEqual(x1, x2) = false, want true")
	}

	y1 := UnexpT{map[int]int{2: 3}}
	if DeepEqual(&x1, &y1) {
		t.Error("DeepEqual(x1, y1) = true, want false")
	}
}

var deepEqualPerfTests = []struct {
	x, y any

	// supposing the closure captures an int i and a string s
	// and has one float64 argument and no results,
	// the generated code looks like:
	//
	//	clos = &struct{F uintptr; X0 *int; X1 *string}{func.1, &i, &s}
	//
	// The use of the struct provides type information to the garbage
	// collector so that it can walk the closure. We could use (in this

    /*
     * For an explanation of the basic principle behind this check, see
     * https://stackoverflow.com/a/35754308/28465
     *
     * In that explanation's notation, our `overlap` check would be `x1 < y2 && y1 < x2`. We've
     * flipped one part of the check so that we're using "less than" in both cases (rather than a
     * mix of "less than" and "greater than"). We've also switched to "strictly less than" rather