Occasionally I like to spend some time looking at the .NET code just to see how things are implemented behind the scenes. I stumbled upon this gem while looking at the String.Equals method via Reflector.
C#
[ReliabilityContract(Consistency.WillNotCorruptState, Cer.MayFail)]
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
string strB = obj as string;
if ((strB == null) && (this != null))
{
return false;
}
return EqualsHelper(this, strB);
}
IL
.method public hidebysig virtual instance bool Equals(object obj) cil managed
{
.custom instance void System.Runtime.ConstrainedExecution.ReliabilityContractAttribute::.ctor(valuetype System.Runtime.ConstrainedExecution.Consistency, valuetype System.Runtime.ConstrainedExecution.Cer) = { int32(3) int32(1) }
.maxstack 2
.locals init (
[0] string str)
L_0000: ldarg.1
L_0001: isinst string
L_0006: stloc.0
L_0007: ldloc.0
L_0008: brtrue.s L_000f
L_000a: ldarg.0
L_000b: brfalse.s L_000f
L_000d: ldc.i4.0
L_000e: ret
L_000f: ldarg.0
L_0010: ldloc.0
L_0011: call bool System.String::EqualsHelper(string, string)
L_0016: ret
}
What is the reasoning for checking this against null? I have to assume there is purpose otherwise this probably would have been caught and removed by now.
I assume you were looking at the .NET 3.5 implementation? I believe the .NET 4 implementation is slightly different.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion that this is because it’s possible to call even virtual instance methods non-virtually on a null reference. Possible in IL, that is. I’ll see if I can produce some IL which would call
null.Equals(null).EDIT: Okay, here’s some interesting code:
I got this by compiling the following C# code:
… and then disassembling with
ildasmand editing. Note this line:Originally, that was
callvirtinstead ofcall.So, what happens when we reassemble it? Well, with .NET 4.0 we get this:
Hmm. What about with .NET 2.0?
Now that’s more interesting… we’ve clearly managed to get into
EqualsHelper, which we wouldn’t have normally expected.Enough of string… let’s try to implement reference equality ourselves, and see whether we can get
null.Equals(null)to return true:Same procedure as before – disassemble, change
callvirttocall, reassemble, and watch it printtrue…Note that although another answers references this C++ question, we’re being even more devious here… because we’re calling a virtual method non-virtually. Normally even the C++/CLI compiler will use
callvirtfor a virtual method. In other words, I think in this particular case, the only way forthisto be null is to write the IL by hand.EDIT: I’ve just noticed something… I wasn’t actually calling the right method in either of our little sample programs. Here’s the call in the first case:
here’s the call in the second:
In the first case, I meant to call
System.String::Equals(object), and in the second, I meant to callTest::Equals(object). From this we can see three things:object.Equals(object)is happy to compare a null “this” referenceIf you add a bit of console output to the C# override, you can see the difference – it won’t be called unless you change the IL to call it explicitly, like this:
So, there we are. Fun and abuse of instance methods on null references.
If you’ve made it this far, you might also like to look at my blog post about how value types can declare parameterless constructors… in IL.