Click here to Skip to main content
13,668,758 members
Click here to Skip to main content
Add your own
alternative version

Tagged as

Stats

3.7K views
1 bookmarked
Posted 2 Aug 2017
Licenced CPOL

A Look at the Internals of 'boxing' in the CLR

, 2 Aug 2017
Rate this:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
It’s a fundamental part of .NET and can often happen without you knowing, but how does it actually work? What is the .NET Runtime doing to make boxing possible?

It’s a fundamental part of .NET and can often happen without you knowing, but how does it actually work? What is the .NET Runtime doing to make boxing possible?

Note: This post won’t be discussing how to detect boxing, how it can affect performance or how to remove it (speak to Ben Adams about that!). It will only be talking about how it works.

As an aside, if you like reading about CLR internals, you may find these other posts interesting:

Boxing in the CLR Specification

Firstly, it’s worth pointing out that boxing is mandated by the CLR specification ‘ECMA-335’, so the runtime has to provide it:

ECMA Spec - I.8.2.4 Boxing and unboxing of values

This means that there are a few key things that the CLR needs to take care of, which we will explore in the rest of this post.

Creating a ‘boxed’ Type

The first thing that the runtime needs to do is create the corresponding reference type (‘boxed type’) for any struct that it loads. You can see this in action, right at the beginning of the ‘Method Table’ creation where it first checks if it’s dealing with a ‘Value Type’, then behaves accordingly. So the ‘boxed type’ for any struct is created up front, when your .dll is imported, then it’s ready to be used by any ‘boxing’ that happens during program execution.

The comment in the linked code is pretty interesting, as it reveals some of the low-level details the runtime has to deal with:

// Check to see if the class is a valuetype; but we don't want to mark System.Enum
// as a ValueType. To accomplish this, the check takes advantage of the fact
// that System.ValueType and System.Enum are loaded one immediately after the
// other in that order, and so if the parent MethodTable is System.ValueType and
// the System.Enum MethodTable is unset, then we must be building System.Enum and
// so we don't mark it as a ValueType.

CPU-specific code-generation

But to see what happens during program execution, let’s start with a simple C# program. The code below creates a custom struct or Value Type, which is then ‘boxed’ and ‘unboxed’:

public struct MyStruct
{
    public int Value;
}

var myStruct = new MyStruct();

// boxing
var boxed = (object)myStruct;

// unboxing
var unboxed = (MyStruct)boxed;

This gets turned into the following IL code, in which you can see the box and unbox.any IL instructions:

L_0000: ldloca.s myStruct
L_0002: initobj TestNamespace.MyStruct
L_0008: ldloc.0 
L_0009: box TestNamespace.MyStruct
L_000e: stloc.1 
L_000f: ldloc.1 
L_0010: unbox.any TestNamespace.MyStruct

Runtime and JIT Code

So what does the JIT do with these IL op codes? Well, in the normal case, it wires up and then inlines the optimised, hand-written, assembly code versions of the ‘JIT Helper Methods’ provided by the runtime. The links below take you to the relevant lines of code in the CoreCLR source:

Interesting enough, the only other ‘JIT Helper Methods’ that get this special treatment are object, string or array allocations, which goes to show just how performance sensitive boxing is.

In comparison, there is only one helper method for ‘unboxing’, called JIT_Unbox(..), which falls back to JIT_Unbox_Helper(..) in the uncommon case and is wired up here (CORINFO_HELP_UNBOX to JIT_Unbox). The JIT will also inline the helper call in the common case, to save the cost of a method call, see Compiler::impImportBlockCode(..).

Note that the ‘unbox helper’ only fetches a reference/pointer to the ‘boxed’ data, it has to then be put onto the stack. As we saw above, when the C# compiler does unboxing, it uses the ‘Unbox_Any’ op-code, not just the ‘Unbox’ one, see Unboxing does not create a copy of the value for more information.

Unboxing Stub Creation

As well as ‘boxing’ and ‘unboxing’ a struct, the runtime also needs to help out during the time that a type remains ‘boxed’. To see why, let’s extend MyStruct and override the ToString() method, so that it displays the current Value:

public struct MyStruct
{
    public int Value;
	
    public override string ToString()
    {
        return <span class="s">"Value = " + Value.ToString();
    }
}

Now, if we look at the ‘Method Table’ the runtime creates for the boxed version of MyStruct (remember, value types have no ‘Method Table’), we can see something strange going on. Note that there are 2 entries for MyStruct::ToString, one of which I’ve labelled as an ‘Unboxing Stub’.

Method table summary for 'MyStruct':
Number of static fields: 0
Number of instance fields: 1
Number of static obj ref fields: 0
Number of static boxed fields: 0
Number of declared fields: 1
Number of declared methods: 1
Number of declared non-abstract methods: 1
Vtable (with interface dupes) for 'MyStruct':
  Total duplicate slots = 0

SD: MT::MethodIterator created for MyStruct (TestNamespace.MyStruct).
  slot  0: MyStruct::ToString  0x000007FE41170C10 (slot =  0) (Unboxing Stub)
  slot  1: System.ValueType::Equals  0x000007FEC1194078 (slot =  1)
  slot  2: System.ValueType::GetHashCode  0x000007FEC1194080 (slot =  2)
  slot  3: System.Object::Finalize  0x000007FEC14A30E0 (slot =  3)
  slot  5: MyStruct::ToString  0x000007FE41170C18 (slot =  4)
  <-- vtable ends here

(full output is available)

So what is this ‘unboxing stub’ and why is it needed?

It’s there because if you call ToString() on a boxed version of MyStruct, it calls the overridden method declared within MyStruct itself (which is what you’d want it to do), not the Object::ToString() version. But, MyStruct::ToString() expects to be able to access any fields within the struct, such as Value in this case. To make that possible, the runtime/JIT has to adjust the this pointer before MyStruct::ToString() is called, as shown in the diagram below:

1. MyStruct:         [0x05 0x00 0x00 0x00]

                     |   Object Header   |   MethodTable  |   MyStruct    |
2. MyStruct (Boxed): [0x40 0x5b 0x6f 0x6f 0xfe 0x7 0x0 0x0 0x5 0x0 0x0 0x0]
                                          ^
                    object 'this' pointer | 

                     |   Object Header   |   MethodTable  |   MyStruct    |
3. MyStruct (Boxed): [0x40 0x5b 0x6f 0x6f 0xfe 0x7 0x0 0x0 0x5 0x0 0x0 0x0]
                                                           ^
                                   adjusted 'this' pointer |

Key to the Diagram

  1. Original struct, on the stack
  2. The struct being boxed into an object that lives on the heap
  3. Adjustment made to this pointer so MyStruct::ToString() will work

(If you want more information on .NET object internals, see this useful article.)

We can see this in action in the code linked below, note that the stub only consists of a few assembly instructions (it’s not as heavy-weight as a method call) and there are CPU-specific versions:

The runtime/JIT has to do these tricks to help maintain the illusion that a struct can behave like a class, even though under-the-hood, they are very different. See Eric Lipperts answer to How do ValueTypes derive from Object (ReferenceType) and still be ValueTypes? for a bit more on this.

Hopefully, this post has given you some idea of what happens under-the-hood when ‘boxing’ takes place.

Further Reading

As before, if you’ve got this far, you might find these other links interesting:

GitHub Issues

Other Similar/Related Articles

Stack Overflow Questions

The post A look at the internals of 'boxing' in the CLR first appeared on my blog Performance is a Feature!

License

This article, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Share

About the Author

matt warren
Software Developer
United Kingdom United Kingdom
No Biography provided

You may also be interested in...

Pro

Comments and Discussions

 
-- There are no messages in this forum --
Permalink | Advertise | Privacy | Cookies | Terms of Use | Mobile
Web06-2016 | 2.8.180820.1 | Last Updated 2 Aug 2017
Article Copyright 2017 by matt warren
Everything else Copyright © CodeProject, 1999-2018
Layout: fixed | fluid