在VB.NET、C#等语言中,单点规则会自动优化到代码中吗?
In VB.NET, C#, etc., does the one-dot rule automatically get optimized into the code?
在 VB.NET、C# 等中,像这样的东西不会得到优化,是吗?
'Bad
a.B.C.DoSomething1()
a.B.C.DoSomething2()
a.B.C.X = 5
DoSomething3(a.B.C.D)
'Good
Dim cachedReference As ClassOfC = a.B.C
cachedReference.DoSomething1()
cachedReference.DoSomething2()
cachedReference.X = 5
DoSomething3(cachedReference.D)
至少在 ECMA 类型的语言中,这是一个好习惯,可以尽量减少进入 a
的次数,然后进入 B
field/property,然后最终进入其 C
field/property。我认为这通常是任何典型的面向对象或过程语言的经验法则,除非至少有一个非常可靠的期望它会像 compiler/jit/etc 那样得到优化。反正。这在典型的 .NET 中是如何处理的,特别是对于 VB.NET 和 C#?
例如,这似乎没有提到单点规则,至少与这两种语言中的任何一种有关:https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973839.aspx。另一方面,如果它通常对属性这样做,我会感到非常惊讶,因为这些是有效的方法。如果它这样做似乎更有意义当且仅当它们是字段甚至可能是完全微不足道的属性时。
好的,出于好奇,我继续尝试了。
给出以下 类:
public class Foo
{
public Bar Bar { get; set;}
}
public class Bar
{
public Baz Baz { get; set;}
}
public class Baz
{
public string One { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public string Two { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public bool BothPopulated() => !(string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(One) || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(Two));
}
public class FooFactory
{
public static Foo Create() => new Foo { Bar = new Bar { Baz = new Baz { One = "Hello", Two = "World" } } };
}
以及以下方法:
void Main()
{
var foo = FooFactory.Create();
var cached = foo.Bar.Baz;
Console.WriteLine(cached.One);
Console.WriteLine(cached.Two);
Console.WriteLine(cached.BothPopulated());
var fooTwo = FooFactory.Create();
Console.WriteLine(fooTwo.Bar.Baz.One);
Console.WriteLine(fooTwo.Bar.Baz.Two);
Console.WriteLine(fooTwo.Bar.Baz.BothPopulated());
}
LinqPad 报告在发布模式下为 main 发出的 IL 为
IL_0000: call UserQuery+FooFactory.Create
IL_0005: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_000A: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_000F: dup
IL_0010: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_One
IL_0015: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_001A: dup
IL_001B: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_Two
IL_0020: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_0025: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.BothPopulated
IL_002A: call System.Console.WriteLine // <- End of cached portion
IL_002F: call UserQuery+FooFactory.Create
IL_0034: dup
IL_0035: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_003A: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_003F: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_One
IL_0044: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_0049: dup
IL_004A: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_004F: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_0054: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_Two
IL_0059: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_005E: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_0063: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_0068: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.BothPopulated
IL_006D: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_0072: ret
所以看起来您通过不每次都钻取属性来节省一些 callvirts。这是否对 运行 时间的 JIT 有任何可衡量的影响我无法回答,但它确实留下了更小的 IL 足迹。
我怀疑它对 运行 时间性能的影响基本上为零。
在 VB.NET、C# 等中,像这样的东西不会得到优化,是吗?
'Bad
a.B.C.DoSomething1()
a.B.C.DoSomething2()
a.B.C.X = 5
DoSomething3(a.B.C.D)
'Good
Dim cachedReference As ClassOfC = a.B.C
cachedReference.DoSomething1()
cachedReference.DoSomething2()
cachedReference.X = 5
DoSomething3(cachedReference.D)
至少在 ECMA 类型的语言中,这是一个好习惯,可以尽量减少进入 a
的次数,然后进入 B
field/property,然后最终进入其 C
field/property。我认为这通常是任何典型的面向对象或过程语言的经验法则,除非至少有一个非常可靠的期望它会像 compiler/jit/etc 那样得到优化。反正。这在典型的 .NET 中是如何处理的,特别是对于 VB.NET 和 C#?
例如,这似乎没有提到单点规则,至少与这两种语言中的任何一种有关:https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973839.aspx。另一方面,如果它通常对属性这样做,我会感到非常惊讶,因为这些是有效的方法。如果它这样做似乎更有意义当且仅当它们是字段甚至可能是完全微不足道的属性时。
好的,出于好奇,我继续尝试了。
给出以下 类:
public class Foo
{
public Bar Bar { get; set;}
}
public class Bar
{
public Baz Baz { get; set;}
}
public class Baz
{
public string One { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public string Two { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public bool BothPopulated() => !(string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(One) || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(Two));
}
public class FooFactory
{
public static Foo Create() => new Foo { Bar = new Bar { Baz = new Baz { One = "Hello", Two = "World" } } };
}
以及以下方法:
void Main()
{
var foo = FooFactory.Create();
var cached = foo.Bar.Baz;
Console.WriteLine(cached.One);
Console.WriteLine(cached.Two);
Console.WriteLine(cached.BothPopulated());
var fooTwo = FooFactory.Create();
Console.WriteLine(fooTwo.Bar.Baz.One);
Console.WriteLine(fooTwo.Bar.Baz.Two);
Console.WriteLine(fooTwo.Bar.Baz.BothPopulated());
}
LinqPad 报告在发布模式下为 main 发出的 IL 为
IL_0000: call UserQuery+FooFactory.Create
IL_0005: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_000A: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_000F: dup
IL_0010: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_One
IL_0015: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_001A: dup
IL_001B: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_Two
IL_0020: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_0025: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.BothPopulated
IL_002A: call System.Console.WriteLine // <- End of cached portion
IL_002F: call UserQuery+FooFactory.Create
IL_0034: dup
IL_0035: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_003A: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_003F: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_One
IL_0044: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_0049: dup
IL_004A: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_004F: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_0054: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.get_Two
IL_0059: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_005E: callvirt UserQuery+Foo.get_Bar
IL_0063: callvirt UserQuery+Bar.get_Baz
IL_0068: callvirt UserQuery+Baz.BothPopulated
IL_006D: call System.Console.WriteLine
IL_0072: ret
所以看起来您通过不每次都钻取属性来节省一些 callvirts。这是否对 运行 时间的 JIT 有任何可衡量的影响我无法回答,但它确实留下了更小的 IL 足迹。
我怀疑它对 运行 时间性能的影响基本上为零。