繁体   English   中英

VB.NET中的foreach比c#更快吗?

[英]Is the foreach in VB.NET faster than in c#?

我的同事说,在之前的一次采访中,他了解到VB中的foreach比c#的foreach更快。 他被告知这是因为两者都有不同的CLR实现。

从C ++的角度来看,我很好奇为什么会这样,而且我被告知我需要先阅读CLR。 谷歌搜索foreach和CLR并不能帮助我理解。

有没有人能够很好地解释为什么foreach在VB.Net中比在c#中更快? 还是我的同事误导了?

C#和VB.Net之间的IL级别没有显着差异。 在这两个版本之间有一些额外的Nop指令,但实际上并没有改变发生的事情。

这是方法:(在C#中)

public void TestForEach()
    {
        List<string> items = new List<string> { "one", "two", "three" };

        foreach (string item in items)
        {
            Debug.WriteLine(item);
        }
    }

在VB.Net中:

Public Sub TestForEach
    Dim items As List(Of String) = New List(Of String)()
    items.Add("one")
    items.Add("two")
    items.Add("three")
    For Each item As string In items
        Debug.WriteLine(item)
    Next
End Sub

这是C#版本的IL:

.method public hidebysig instance void TestForEach() cil managed
{
    .maxstack 2
    .locals init (
        [0] class [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string> items,
        [1] string item,
        [2] class [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string> <>g__initLocal3,
        [3] valuetype [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string> CS$5$0000,
        [4] bool CS$4$0001)
    L_0000: nop 
    L_0001: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::.ctor()
    L_0006: stloc.2 
    L_0007: ldloc.2 
    L_0008: ldstr "one"
    L_000d: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::Add(!0)
    L_0012: nop 
    L_0013: ldloc.2 
    L_0014: ldstr "two"
    L_0019: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::Add(!0)
    L_001e: nop 
    L_001f: ldloc.2 
    L_0020: ldstr "three"
    L_0025: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::Add(!0)
    L_002a: nop 
    L_002b: ldloc.2 
    L_002c: stloc.0 
    L_002d: nop 
    L_002e: ldloc.0 
    L_002f: callvirt instance valuetype [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<!0> [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::GetEnumerator()
    L_0034: stloc.3 
    L_0035: br.s L_0048
    L_0037: ldloca.s CS$5$0000
    L_0039: call instance !0 [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::get_Current()
    L_003e: stloc.1 
    L_003f: nop 
    L_0040: ldloc.1 
    L_0041: call void [System]System.Diagnostics.Debug::WriteLine(string)
    L_0046: nop 
    L_0047: nop 
    L_0048: ldloca.s CS$5$0000
    L_004a: call instance bool [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::MoveNext()
    L_004f: stloc.s CS$4$0001
    L_0051: ldloc.s CS$4$0001
    L_0053: brtrue.s L_0037
    L_0055: leave.s L_0066
    L_0057: ldloca.s CS$5$0000
    L_0059: constrained [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>
    L_005f: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.IDisposable::Dispose()
    L_0064: nop 
    L_0065: endfinally 
    L_0066: nop 
    L_0067: ret 
    .try L_0035 to L_0057 finally handler L_0057 to L_0066
}

这是VB.Net版本的IL:

.method public instance void TestForEach() cil managed
{
    .maxstack 2
    .locals init (
        [0] class [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string> items,
        [1] string item,
        [2] valuetype [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string> VB$t_struct$L0,
        [3] bool VB$CG$t_bool$S0)
    L_0000: nop 
    L_0001: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::.ctor()
    L_0006: stloc.0 
    L_0007: ldloc.0 
    L_0008: ldstr "one"
    L_000d: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::Add(!0)
    L_0012: nop 
    L_0013: ldloc.0 
    L_0014: ldstr "two"
    L_0019: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::Add(!0)
    L_001e: nop 
    L_001f: ldloc.0 
    L_0020: ldstr "three"
    L_0025: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::Add(!0)
    L_002a: nop 
    L_002b: nop 
    L_002c: ldloc.0 
    L_002d: callvirt instance valuetype [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<!0> [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1<string>::GetEnumerator()
    L_0032: stloc.2 
    L_0033: br.s L_0045
    L_0035: ldloca.s VB$t_struct$L0
    L_0037: call instance !0 [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::get_Current()
    L_003c: stloc.1 
    L_003d: ldloc.1 
    L_003e: call void [System]System.Diagnostics.Debug::WriteLine(string)
    L_0043: nop 
    L_0044: nop 
    L_0045: ldloca.s VB$t_struct$L0
    L_0047: call instance bool [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::MoveNext()
    L_004c: stloc.3 
    L_004d: ldloc.3 
    L_004e: brtrue.s L_0035
    L_0050: nop 
    L_0051: leave.s L_0062
    L_0053: ldloca.s VB$t_struct$L0
    L_0055: constrained [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>
    L_005b: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.IDisposable::Dispose()
    L_0060: nop 
    L_0061: endfinally 
    L_0062: nop 
    L_0063: ret 
    .try L_002c to L_0053 finally handler L_0053 to L_0062
}

我对这种说法有点怀疑。 foreach构造对两种语言的工作方式相同,因为它从托管对象获取IEnumerator并在其上调用MoveNext()。 无论原始代码是用VB.NET还是用c#编写都没关系,它们都编译成同样的东西。

在我的测试时间中,VB.NET和c#中的相同foreach循环在很长的迭代中间隔不超过1%。

C#:

L_0048: ldloca.s CS$5$0001
L_004a: call instance !0 [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::get_Current()
L_004f: stloc.3 
L_0050: nop 
L_0051: ldloc.3 
L_0052: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string)
L_0057: nop 
L_0058: nop 
L_0059: ldloca.s CS$5$0001
L_005b: call instance bool [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::MoveNext()
L_0060: stloc.s CS$4$0000
L_0062: ldloc.s CS$4$0000
L_0064: brtrue.s L_0048

VB.NET:

L_0043: ldloca.s VB$t_struct$L0
L_0045: call instance !0 [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::get_Current()
L_004a: stloc.s item
L_004c: ldloc.s item
L_004e: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string)
L_0053: nop 
L_0054: nop 
L_0055: ldloca.s VB$t_struct$L0
L_0057: call instance bool [mscorlib]System.Collections.Generic.List`1/Enumerator<string>::MoveNext()
L_005c: stloc.s VB$CG$t_bool$S0
L_005e: ldloc.s VB$CG$t_bool$S0
L_0060: brtrue.s L_0043

对于循环字符串数组的简单foreach,这是由VB生成的IL代码:

L_0007: ldloc.0 
L_0008: stloc.3 
L_0009: ldc.i4.0 
L_000a: stloc.2 
L_000b: br.s L_0019

L_000d: ldloc.3 
L_000e: ldloc.2 
L_000f: ldelem.ref 
L_0010: stloc.1 

...

L_0015: ldloc.2 
L_0016: ldc.i4.1 
L_0017: add.ovf 
L_0018: stloc.2 

L_0019: ldloc.2 
L_001a: ldloc.3 
L_001b: ldlen 
L_001c: conv.ovf.i4 
L_001d: blt.s L_000d

这是C#生成的IL代码:

L_0007: ldloc.0 
L_0008: stloc.2 
L_0009: ldc.i4.0 
L_000a: stloc.3 
L_000b: br.s L_0019

L_000d: ldloc.2 
L_000e: ldloc.3 
L_000f: ldelem.ref 
L_0010: stloc.1 

...

L_0015: ldloc.3 
L_0016: ldc.i4.1 
L_0017: add 
L_0018: stloc.3 

L_0019: ldloc.3 
L_001a: ldloc.2 
L_001b: ldlen 
L_001c: conv.i4 
L_001d: blt.s L_000d

唯一的区别是VB使用add.ovfconv.ovf.i4而不是addconv.i4 这意味着VB代码执行了两次额外的溢出检查,并且可能稍慢。

VB.NET和C#都使用相同的CLR。 我只是使用以下代码在空中基准测试中快速做了一下:

C#版本:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    List<string> myList = new List<string>();

    for(int i = 0; i < 500000; i++)
    {
        myList.Add(i.ToString());
    }

    DateTime st = DateTime.Now;
    foreach(string s in myList)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(s);
    }
    DateTime et = DateTime.Now;

    Console.WriteLine(et - st);
    Console.ReadLine();
}

VB.NET版本:

Module Module1

    Sub Main()
        Dim myList As List(Of String) = New List(Of String)

        For i = 1 To 500000
            myList.Add(i)
        Next

        Dim st, et
        st = DateTime.Now
        For Each s As String In myList
            Console.WriteLine(s)
        Next
        et = DateTime.Now

        Console.WriteLine(et - st)
        Console.ReadLine()
    End Sub

End Module

在发布版本(最重要的)执行500000次迭代时,C#代码稍微快一点,但只有一个胡须。

调试版本:

C#     - 1m 40s 457ms
VB.NET - 1m 42s 022ms

发布版本:

C#     - 0m 56s 179ms
VB.NET - 0m 56s 327ms

你应该做一个实验。 抓住(真棒) .NET Reflector ,在每种语言中构建一个简单的测试用例,并查看生成的MSIL是否相同。

暂无
暂无

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM