String concatenation -- not the typical question

[Justin M. Keyes]

Hi,

Please read carefully before assuming that this is the same old
question about string concatenation in C#!

It is well-known that the following concatenation produces multiple
immutable String objects for each statement:

String a = "a";
a += "b";
a += "c";
a += "d";

However, I have not seen any source say whether or not the following
statement creates a new String object for each concatenation (i.e.,
each "+" sign):

String b = a + "b" + "c" + "d";

In other words: if the concatenation is done all in one statement, does
the compiler optimize the assignment to b? If the assignment to b had,
say, twenty such concatenations in it, would there be a reason to use
StringBuilder?

Thanks very much.

Justin

[Justin M. Keyes]

Two more questions:
What if the terms of the assignment to b were all string literals?
What if the terms of the assignment to b were all string variables?

Thanks!
Justin

[Bill Butler]

"Justin M. Keyes" <ju******@gmail .com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ j33g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .
<snip>

However, I have not seen any source say whether or not the following
statement creates a new String object for each concatenation (i.e.,
each "+" sign):

String b = a + "b" + "c" + "d";
This statement in simply converted into concatenation behind the scenes.
<Unverified>
It is also possible that it will optimize away the concatenation of literals altogether.
</Unverified>

In other words: if the concatenation is done all in one statement, does
the compiler optimize the assignment to b?
Yes
If the assignment to b had,
say, twenty such concatenations in it, would there be a reason to use
StringBuilder?

If you are using + as opposed to += you are fine doing it this way

[Justin M. Keyes]

Thanks for your help. For literals I certainly agree, but what if the
statement uses variables? E.G., my statement above has the variable 'a'
as a term.

[Andrew Robinson]

The compiler is typically pretty smart about these things. Take a look at
your code using reflector:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
string a = "A" + "B" + "C" + "D" + "E" + "F" + "G";
Console.WriteLi ne(a);
}

private static void Main(string[] args)
{
string text1 = "ABCDEFG";
Console.WriteLi ne(text1);
}

but it not smarter than your application:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
string a = "A";
string b = "B";
string c = "C";
string d = a + b + c;
Console.WriteLi ne(a);
}

private static void Main(string[] args)
{
string text1 = "A";
string text2 = "B";
string text3 = "C";
string text4 = text1 + text2 + text3;
Console.WriteLi ne(text1);
}
and now for a slightly different question and answer:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
string a = "A" + "B" + "C" + "D" + "E" + "F" + "G";
string b = "ABCDEFG";
}

take a look at the debug disassembly and you will see that both a and b are
initialized with the same literal:

string a = "A" + "B" + "C" + "D" + "E" + "F" + "G";
00000029 mov eax,dword ptr ds:[0227307Ch]
0000002f mov edi,eax
string b = "ABCDEFG";
00000031 mov eax,dword ptr ds:[0227307Ch]
00000037 mov esi,eax


--
Andrew Robinson
http://blog.binaryocean.com
"Justin M. Keyes" <ju******@gmail .com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ i39g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

Two more questions:
What if the terms of the assignment to b were all string literals?
What if the terms of the assignment to b were all string variables?

Thanks!
Justin

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Bill Butler <qw****@asdf.co m> wrote:

"Justin M. Keyes" <ju******@gmail .com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ j33g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .
<snip>

However, I have not seen any source say whether or not the following
statement creates a new String object for each concatenation (i.e.,
each "+" sign):

String b = a + "b" + "c" + "d";

This statement in simply converted into concatenation behind the scenes.
<Unverified>
It is also possible that it will optimize away the concatenation of
literals altogether.
</Unverified>

Not just possible - guaranteed. Whenever there is a constant expression
(as per the spec definition of "constant expression") the expression is
evaluated at compile-time.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Justin M. Keyes <ju******@gmail .com> wrote:

Thanks for your help. For literals I certainly agree, but what if the
statement uses variables? E.G., my statement above has the variable 'a'
as a term.

It ends up as a single concatenation: a+"bcd". That's as fast as (or
faster than) using a StringBuilder.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Bill Butler]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

Bill Butler <qw****@asdf.co m> wrote:

"Justin M. Keyes" <ju******@gmail .com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ j33g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .
<snip>

> However, I have not seen any source say whether or not the following
> statement creates a new String object for each concatenation (i.e.,
> each "+" sign):
>
> String b = a + "b" + "c" + "d";

This statement in simply converted into concatenation behind the scenes.
<Unverified>
It is also possible that it will optimize away the concatenation of
literals altogether.
</Unverified>

Not just possible - guaranteed. Whenever there is a constant expression
(as per the spec definition of "constant expression") the expression is
evaluated at compile-time.

Thanks Jon,

I wasn't ABSOLUTLY sure so I waffled.

[Bruce Wood]

I'm surprised that Jon didn't point you to his page on StringBuilder :)
Here it is.

http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/stringbuilder.html

The answer is that if the statement uses variables, it is compiled into
a single call to String.Concat() , which does not create intermediate
copies of the string. You get multiple intermediate copies only if you
write this:

string a = b;
a += c;
a += d;
a += e;
....

[Justin M. Keyes]

That is *exactly* what I was looking for.

Bruce Wood, Andrew Robinson, Bill Butler, and Jon Skeet, thanks very
much!