I have a frustrating problem with a bit of code and don't know why this problem occurs.
//
// .NET FRAMEWORK v4.6.2 Console App
static void Main( string[] args )
{
var list = new List<string>{ "aa", "bbb", "cccccc", "dddddddd", "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee", "fffff", "gg" };
foreach( var item in list )
{
Progress( item );
}
}
private static int _cursorLeft = -1;
private static int _cursorTop = -1;
public static void Progress( string value = null )
{
lock( Console.Out )
{
if( !string.IsNullOrEmpty( value ) )
{
Console.Write( value );
var left = Console.CursorLeft;
var top = Console.CursorTop;
Interlocked.Exchange( ref _cursorLeft, Console.CursorLeft );
Interlocked.Exchange( ref _cursorTop, Console.CursorTop );
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine( "Left: {0} _ {1}", _cursorLeft, left );
Console.WriteLine( "Top: {0} _ {1}", _cursorTop, top );
}
}
}
When running without Code optimization then the result is as expected. _cursorLeft and left as far as _cursorTop and top are equal.
aa
Left: 2 _ 2
Top: 0 _ 0
bbb
Left: 3 _ 3
Top: 3 _ 3
But when I run it with Code optimization both values _cursorLeft and _cursorTop become bizzare:
aa
Left: -65534 _ 2
Top: -65536 _ 0
bb
Left: -65533 _ 3
Top: -65533 _ 3
I found out 2 workarounds:
Because workaround #1 does not match my needs I ended up with workaround #2:
private static int _cursorLeft = -1;
private static int _cursorTop = -1;
public static void Progress( string value = null )
{
lock( Console.Out )
{
if( !string.IsNullOrEmpty( value ) )
{
Console.Write( value );
// OLD - does NOT work!
//Interlocked.Exchange( ref _cursorLeft, Console.CursorLeft );
//Interlocked.Exchange( ref _cursorTop, Console.CursorTop );
// NEW - works great!
var left = Console.CursorLeft;
var top = Console.CursorTop;
Interlocked.Exchange( ref _cursorLeft, left ); // new
Interlocked.Exchange( ref _cursorTop, top ); // new
}
}
}
But where does this bizarre behavior comes from?
And is there a better workaround/solution?
[Edit by Matthew Watson: Adding simplified repro:]
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
int actual = -1;
Interlocked.Exchange(ref actual, Test.AlwaysReturnsZero);
Console.WriteLine("Actual value: {0}, Expected 0", actual);
}
}
static class Test
{
static short zero;
public static int AlwaysReturnsZero => zero;
}
[Edit by me:]
I figured out another even shorter example:
class Program
{
private static int _intToExchange = -1;
private static short _innerShort = 2;
// [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoOptimization)]
static void Main( string[] args )
{
var oldValue = Interlocked.Exchange(ref _intToExchange, _innerShort);
Console.WriteLine( "It was: {0}", oldValue );
Console.WriteLine( "It is: {0}", _intToExchange );
Console.WriteLine( "Expected: {0}", _innerShort );
}
}
Unless you don't use Optimization or set _intToExchange to a value in the range of ushort
you would not recognize the problem.
You diagnosed the problem correctly, this is an optimizer bug. It is specific to the 64-bit jitter (aka RyuJIT), the one that first started shipping in VS2015. You can only see it by looking at the generated machine code. Looks like this on my machine:
00000135 movsx rcx,word ptr [rbp-7Ch] ; Cursor.Left
0000013a mov r8,7FF9B92D4754h ; ref _cursorLeft
00000144 xchg cx,word ptr [r8] ; Interlocked.Exchange
The XCHG instruction is wrong, it uses 16-bit operands (cx and word ptr). But the variable type requires 32-bit operands. As a consequence, the upper 16-bits of the variable remain at 0xffff, making the entire value negative.
Characterizing this bug is a bit tricky, it is not easy to isolate. Getting the Cursor.Left property getter inlined appears to be instrumental to trigger the bug, under the hood it accesses a 16-bit field. Apparently enough to, somehow, make the optimizer decide that a 16-bit exchange will get the job done. And the reason why your workaround code solved it, using 32-bit variables to store the Cursor.Left/Top properties bumps the optimizer into a good codepath.
The workaround in this case is a pretty simple one, beyond the one you found, you don't need Interlocked at all because the lock
statement already makes the code thread-safe. Please report the bug at connect.microsoft.com, let me know if you don't want to take the time and I'll take care of it.