Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
105 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

c# - Changed behavior of string.Empty (or System.String::Empty) in .NET 4.5

Short version:

The C# code

typeof(string).GetField("Empty").SetValue(null, "Hello world!");
Console.WriteLine(string.Empty);

when compiled and run, gives output "Hello world!" under .NET version 4.0 and earlier, but gives "" under .NET 4.5 and .NET 4.5.1.

How can a write to a field be ignored like that, or, who resets this field?

Longer version:

I have never really understood why the string.Empty field (also known as [mscorlib]System.String::Empty) is not const (aka. literal), see "Why isn't String.Empty a constant?". This means that, for example, in C# we can't use string.Empty in the following situations:

  • In a switch statement in the form case string.Empty:
  • As the default value of an optional parameter, like void M(string x = string.Empty) { }
  • When applying an attribute, like [SomeAttribute(string.Empty)]
  • Other situations where a compile-time constant is required

which has implications to the well-known "religious war" over whether to use string.Empty or "", see "In C#, should I use string.Empty or String.Empty or "" to intitialize a string?".

A couple of years ago I amused myself by setting Empty to some other string instance through reflection, and see how many parts of the BCL started behaving strangely because of it. It was quite many. And the change of the Empty reference seemed to persist for the complete life of the application. Now, the other day I tried to repeat that little stunt, but then using a .NET 4.5 machine, and I couldn't do it anymore.

(NB! If you have .NET 4.5 on your machine, probably your PowerShell still uses an older version of .NET (EDIT: only true for Windows 7 or older where PowerShell has not been updated beyond PowerShell 2.0), so try copy-pasting [String].GetField("Empty").SetValue($null, "Hello world!") into PowerShell to see some effects of changing this reference.)

When I tried to search for a reason for this, I stumbled upon the interesting thread "What's the cause of this FatalExecutionEngineError in .NET 4.5 beta?". In the accepted answer to that question, is it noted that through version 4.0, System.String had a static constructor .cctor in which the field Empty was set (in the C# source, that would probably just be a field initializer, of course), while in 4.5 no static constructor exists. In both versions, the field itself looks the same:

.field public static initonly string Empty

(as seen with IL DASM).

No other fields than String::Empty seems to be affected. As an example, I experimented with System.Diagnostics.Debugger::DefaultCategory. This case seems analogous: A sealed class containing a static readonly (static initonly) field of type string. But in this case it works fine to change the value (reference) through reflection.

Back to the question:

How is it possible, technically, that Empty doesn't seem to change (in 4.5) when I set the field? I have verified that the C# compiler does not "cheat" with the read, it outputs IL like:

ldsfld     string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty

so the actual field ought to be read.


Edit after bounty was put on my question: Note that the write operation (which needs reflection for sure, since the field is readonly (a.k.a. initonly in the IL)) actually works as expected. It is the read operation which is anomalous. If you read with reflection, as in typeof(string).GetField("Empty").GetValue(null), everything is normal (i.e. the change of value is seen). See comments below.

So the better question is: Why does this new version of the framework cheat when it reads this particular field?

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

The difference lies in the JIT for the new release of .NET, which apparently optimizes references to String.Empty by inlining a reference to a particular String instance rather than load the value stored in the Empty field. This is justified under the definition of the init-only constraint in ECMA-335 Partition I §8.6.1.2, which can be interpreted to mean the value of the String.Empty field will not change after the String class is initialized.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...