Are there other ways of calling an interface method of a struct without boxing except in generic classes?

c#, il

Solution

It depends... you specifically say you don't want a generic class... the only other option is a generic method in a non-generic class. The only other time you can get the compiler to emit a `constrained` call is if you call `ToString()`, `GetHashCode()` or `Equals()` (from `object`) on a `struct`, since those are then `constrained` - if the `struct` has an `override` they will be `call`; if it doesn't have an `override`, they will be `callvirt`. Which is why you should always `override` those 3 for any `struct` ;p But I digress. A simple example would be a utility class with some static methods - extension methods would be an ideal example, since you also get the advantage that the compiler will switch automatically between the public/implicit API and the extension/explicit API, without you ever needing to change code. For example, the following (which shows both an implicit and explicit implementation) has no boxing, with one `call` and one `constrained`+`callvirt`, which will implemented via `call` at the JIT:

using System;
interface IFoo
{
    void Bar();
}
struct ExplicitImpl : IFoo
{
    void IFoo.Bar() { Console.WriteLine("ExplicitImpl"); }
}
struct ImplicitImpl : IFoo
{
    public void Bar() {Console.WriteLine("ImplicitImpl");}
}
static class FooExtensions
{
    public static void Bar<T>(this T foo) where T : IFoo
    {
        foo.Bar();
    }
}
static class Program
{
    static void Main()
    {
        var expl = new ExplicitImpl();
        expl.Bar(); // via extension method
        var impl = new ImplicitImpl();
        impl.Bar(); // direct
    }
}

And here's the key bits of IL:

.method private hidebysig static void Main() cil managed
{
    .entrypoint
    .maxstack 1
    .locals init (
        [0] valuetype ExplicitImpl expl,
        [1] valuetype ImplicitImpl impl)
    L_0000: ldloca.s expl
    L_0002: initobj ExplicitImpl
    L_0008: ldloc.0 
    L_0009: call void FooExtensions::Bar<valuetype ExplicitImpl>(!!0)
    L_000e: ldloca.s impl
    L_0010: initobj ImplicitImpl
    L_0016: ldloca.s impl
    L_0018: call instance void ImplicitImpl::Bar()
    L_001d: ret 
}
.method public hidebysig static void Bar<(IFoo) T>(!!T foo) cil managed
{
    .custom instance void [mscorlib]System.Runtime.CompilerServices.ExtensionAttribute::.ctor()
    .maxstack 8
    L_0000: ldarga.s foo
    L_0002: constrained. !!T
    L_0008: callvirt instance void IFoo::Bar()
    L_000d: ret 
}

One downside of an extension method, though, is that it is doing an extra copy of the `struct` (see the `ldloc.0`) on the stack, which might be a problem if it is either oversized, or if it is a mutating method (which you should avoid anyway). If that is the case, a `ref` parameter is helpful, but note that an extension method cannot have a `ref this` parameter - so you can't do that with an extension method. But consider:

Bar(ref expl);
Bar(ref impl);

with:

static void Bar<T>(ref T foo) where T : IFoo
{
    foo.Bar();
}

which is:

L_001d: ldloca.s expl
L_001f: call void Program::Bar<valuetype ExplicitImpl>(!!0&)
L_0024: ldloca.s impl
L_0026: call void Program::Bar<valuetype ImplicitImpl>(!!0&)

with:

.method private hidebysig static void Bar<(IFoo) T>(!!T& foo) cil managed
{
    .maxstack 8
    L_0000: ldarg.0 
    L_0001: constrained. !!T
    L_0007: callvirt instance void IFoo::Bar()
    L_000c: ret 
}

Still no boxing, but now we also never copy the struct, even for the explicit case.

Problem

see code snippet ``` public interface I0 { void f0(); } public struct S0:I0 { void I0.f0() { } } public class A<E> where E :I0 { public E e; public void call() { e.f0(); } } ``` here is IL code for call() ``` .maxstack 8 L_0000: ldarg.0 L_0001: ldflda !0 Temp.A`1<!E>::e L_0006: constrained !E L_000c: callvirt instance void Temp.I0::f0() L_0011: ret ``` see reference for constrained The constrained prefix can also be used for invocation of interface methods on value types, because the value type method implementing the interface method can be changed using a MethodImpl. If the constrained prefix is not used, the compiler is forced to choose which of the value type's methods to bind to at compile time. Using the constrained prefix allows the MSIL to bind to the method that implements the interface method at run time, rather than at compile time. That means it will call one method containing interface method code of f0 without boxing the struct. Do any other ways caling interface method without boxing exist as above GenericClass in C#?

Original source

Related problems