First of all, a small disclaimer before the actual question:
I know there are a lot of closed/duplicate questions regarding the difference between the
sizeof
operator and theMarshal.SizeOf<T>
method, and I do understand the difference between the two. Here I'm talking about theSizeOf<T>
method in the newUnsafe
class
So, I'm not sure I understand the actual difference between these two operations, and whether there's a specific difference when using the method on a struct/class in particular.
The sizeof
operator takes a Type name and returns the number of managed bytes it is supposed to take up when allocated (ie. an Int32
will return 4, for example).
The Unsafe.SizeOf<T>
method on the other hand, is implemented in IL like all the other methods in the Unsafe
class, and looking at the code here's what it does:
.method public hidebysig static int32 SizeOf<T>() cil managed aggressiveinlining
{
.custom instance void System.Runtime.Versioning.NonVersionableAttribute::.ctor() = ( 01 00 00 00 )
.maxstack 1
sizeof !!T
ret
}
Now, if I'm not wrong, the code is just calling sizeof !!T
which is the same as sizeof(T)
(calling the sizeof
operator with the type name T
), so wouldn't the two of them be exactly equivalent?
Also, I see the method is also allocating a useless object (the NonVersionableAttribute
) in the first line, so wouldn't that cause a small amount of memory to be heap-allocated as well?
My question is:
Is it safe to say that the two methods are perfectly equivalent and that therefore it is just better to use the classic
sizeof
operator, as that also avoid the allocation of that attribute in theSizeOf<T>
method? Was thisSizeOf<T>
method added to theUnsafe
class just for convenience at this point?
While this method indeed just uses sizeof
IL instruction - there is a difference with regular sizeof
operator, because this operator cannot be applied to arbitrary types:
Used to obtain the size in bytes for an unmanaged type. Unmanaged types include the built-in types that are listed in the table that follows, and also the following:
Enum types
Pointer types
User-defined structs that do not contain any fields or properties that are reference types
If you try to write analog of Unsafe.SizeOf
- it will not work:
public static int SizeOf<T>()
{
// nope, will not compile
return sizeof(T);
}
So Unsafe.SizeOf
lifts restrictions of sizeof
operator and allow you to use IL sizeof
instruction with arbitrary types (including reference types for which it will return size of reference).
As for attribute construct you see in IL - that does not mean attribute will be instantiated for each call - that's just IL syntax for associating attributes with various members (method in this case).
Examples:
public struct Test {
public int Int1;
}
static void Main() {
// works
var s1 = Unsafe.SizeOf<Test>();
// doesn't work, need to mark method with "unsafe"
var s2 = sizeof(Test);
}
Another example:
public struct Test {
public int Int1;
public string String1;
}
static unsafe void Main() {
// works, return 16 in 64bit process - 4 for int, 4 for padding, because
// alignment of the type is the size of its largest element, which is 8
// and 8 for string
var s1 = Unsafe.SizeOf<Test>();
// doesn't work even with unsafe,
// cannot take size of variable of managed type "Test"
// because Test contains field of reference type (string)
var s2 = sizeof(Test);
}
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With