Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use a cached delegate for method group conversion #5835

Closed
Tracked by #829
gafter opened this issue Oct 9, 2015 · 29 comments · Fixed by #58288
Closed
Tracked by #829

Use a cached delegate for method group conversion #5835

gafter opened this issue Oct 9, 2015 · 29 comments · Fixed by #58288
Labels
4 - In Review A fix for the issue is submitted for review. Area-Compilers Feature Request help wanted The issue is "up for grabs" - add a comment if you are interested in working on it Tenet-Performance Regression in measured performance of the product from goals.

Comments

@gafter
Copy link
Member

gafter commented Oct 9, 2015

The method group conversion today always creates a fresh delegate instance.

Instead, for a method group conversion from a static method we should cache it and only create it once, like we do for non-capturing lambda expressions.

[The C# language spec is being modified to permit this]

@gafter gafter added help wanted The issue is "up for grabs" - add a comment if you are interested in working on it Area-Compilers Tenet-Performance Regression in measured performance of the product from goals. labels Oct 9, 2015
@gafter gafter added this to the 1.2 milestone Oct 9, 2015
@stephentoub
Copy link
Member

WOO HOO!!!

@danieljohnson2
Copy link

Isn't this a breaking change? I don't think I've ever written code that cares about delegate identity (as opposed to equality), but if it anybody has, this could break it.

Also, it used to be that you got crazy compiler magic if you used the delegate { ... } or foo => bar syntaxes, and heaven knows what code gets generated then (caching the delegate is the least of it) But the magic happens only if you ask for it.

Now, the rule is to be that the crazy compiler magic happens unless you say new. Admittedly, the 'magic' here is really just injecting a small, bounded memory leak, but I think it's still surprising. I was surprised when I found out that => does this sometimes, and I knew about Expression<T> already, which is far crazier.

I guess this is mostly harmless, so long as you do not also break the equality semantics of the delegates produced, and so long as you can turn this off with the new EventHandler(...) syntax.

@mburbea
Copy link

mburbea commented Oct 12, 2015

Yes please. Can we do something about delegates in generic methods? Currently they are still a much slower caching (if they get cached at all) strategy then for delegates created in non-generic methods

@Lukazoid
Copy link

👍 for this, also as per the comment by @mburbea is there any interest in caching for delegates in generic methods? Is it worth creating a separate issue for it.

@stephentoub
Copy link
Member

is there any interest in caching for delegates in generic methods? Is it worth creating a separate issue for it.

Roslyn already does this. For example, with this code:

using System;

public class Test
{
    public static void Main() { GenericMethod<string>(); }

    private static void GenericMethod<T>()
    {
        InvokeAction(() => Console.WriteLine(typeof(T)));
    }

    private static void InvokeAction(Action action)
    {
        action();
    }
}

the code generated for GenericMethod<T> looks like this:

private static void GenericMethod<T>()
{
    InvokeAction(
        <>c__1<T>.<>9__1_0 ?? 
        (<>c__1<T>.<>9__1_0 = new Action(<>c__1<T>.<>9.<GenericMethod>b__1_0)));
}

private sealed class <>c__1<T>
{
    public static readonly Test.<>c__1<T> <>9;
    public static Action <>9__1_0;
    internal void <GenericMethod>b__1_0();
    ...
}

@Lukazoid
Copy link

Oh sweet, I did verify the IL but forgot I wasn't using Roslyn yet at work!

@sharwell
Copy link
Member

So what you're saying is the compiler should handle the insanity that was DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers#1689?

I'm totally in agreement there. 👍

@davidfowl
Copy link
Member

Also since the recent simplifications in ASP.NET Core even more people may be tempted to use static methods in MapXxx calls.

That allocation is once per application (not per request) so its's not a big deal.

@shadow-cs
Copy link

Right @davidfowl this is done in startup and then cached internally, I failed to think that far ahead.

@shadow-cs
Copy link

Any news? Seems to me more and more people stumble upon this.

@KalleOlaviNiemitalo
Copy link

Is there a corresponding issue on csharplang, or has the spec already been modified?

The spec has already been modified and published.

ECMA-334 (C# Language Specification) 4th edition (June 2006) disallows caching:

  • §13.6 (Method group conversions)

    The compile-time application of the conversion from E to D is the same as the compile-time processing of the delegate creation expression new D(E) (§14.5.10.3).

  • §14.5.10.3 (Delegate creation expressions)

    The result is a value of type D, namely a newly created delegate that refers to the method M and target object.

ECMA-334 5th edition (December 2017) allows caching:

  • §11.8 (Method group conversions)

    The conversion is permitted (but not required) to use an existing delegate instance that already contains these references.

Also available in dotnet/csharpstandard.

@RikkiGibson
Copy link
Contributor

This is resolved by #58288. Expected to ship in 17.2. I believe the caching behavior only occurs when using a preview language version, and probably with C# 11/.NET 7 and up once they are released.

@jcouv
Copy link
Member

jcouv commented Mar 1, 2022

FYI, feature was merged for Visual Studio 17.2 preview 2 as preview feature. Will be released as part of .NET 7 and C# 11 by end of year.

@davidfowl
Copy link
Member

ClappingHappyGIF

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
4 - In Review A fix for the issue is submitted for review. Area-Compilers Feature Request help wanted The issue is "up for grabs" - add a comment if you are interested in working on it Tenet-Performance Regression in measured performance of the product from goals.
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.