maximum number of methods supported in C# class

martin_hughes

I just had a search through MS's C# Comiler errors/warnings list http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228373(VS.80).aspx[^] and can't see anything that explicitly complains about too many methods being in a class.

leppie

Seeing Assembly metatokens takes the following form: 00 000000, where the former is the type, and the latter is the code, I would say the maximum number of methoddef's in an assembly would be limited to 24-bits, iow 16.7 million. Dunno if there is a limitation on a classes though.

**

xacc.ide-0.2.0.75 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!

**

Luc Pattyn

when in trouble, switch to Win64. :)

Luc Pattyn [My Articles] [Forum Guidelines]

led mike

Colin Angus Mackay wrote:

I think that if you ever reached that limit then you might want to seriously reconsider your design.

or the switch/case limit or the if/elseif limit or the .... or if none of that makes sense to you try this[^]

vytheese · xacc.ide-0.2.0.75 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!

A nice research. Thanks, Vythees

Dan Neely

IIRC ebay is running its servers using c++ and ISAPI, not .net.

-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer

vytheese

Fiction : :) I may end up with Portablity issues with 32bit cousins. Not an real issue, but just to know the number. :wtf: Thanks, Vythees

vytheese

I agree, I think then there should be the same constraint exist in .NET class also. Thanks, Vythees

vytheese

Oh God, thats classic link. :) Thanks, Vythees

Ed Poore · xacc.ide-0.2.0.75 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!

There is a limit, I remember someone a while ago (I've got a feeling in this forum) hit a limit on the number of fields in anycase that they could include in a class. Buggered if I can remember where it was or what it was :sigh:

My Blog

leppie

Not research, I know it from working with the spec :) And those values can be accessed from .NET 2 (nowadays).

**

xacc.ide-0.2.0.75 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!

**

leppie

Maybe you are thinking about the parameter limit, that is 16383/4.

**

xacc.ide-0.2.0.75 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!

**

Ed Poore · xacc.ide-0.2.0.75 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!

No, I'm pretty sure that someone managed to hit a limit on the number of fields that could be contained in a class. I'll do some digging.

My Blog

Sean Michael Murphy

I let this run for an hour to get to 5000 before I gave up. Someone with more CPU and physical RAM than I have should run it and see where it ends...

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using System.CodeDom.Compiler;

namespace MethodCountLimitFinder {
   class Program {
      static void Main(string[] args) {
         Int32 methodCount = 1;
         Microsoft.CSharp.CSharpCodeProvider cscp = new Microsoft.CSharp.CSharpCodeProvider();
         ICodeCompiler icc = cscp.CreateCompiler();

         CompilerParameters cp = new CompilerParameters();
         cp.GenerateExecutable = false;
         cp.GenerateInMemory = true;

         CompilerResults cr = null;
         string pre = "using System;" + Environment.NewLine +
                  Environment.NewLine +
                  "namespace Tester {" + Environment.NewLine +
                  " class Test {" + Environment.NewLine;
         string post = " }" + Environment.NewLine +
                  "}";
         string inner = string.Empty;

         while (true) {
            inner += " public Int32 Method" + methodCount.ToString() + "() {" + Environment.NewLine +
                     " return 42;" + Environment.NewLine +
                     " }" + Envi

DavidNohejl

Sean Michael Murphy wrote:

while (true) { inner += " public Int32 Method" + methodCount.ToString() + "() {" + Environment.NewLine + " return 42;" + Environment.NewLine + " }" + Environment.NewLine; cr = icc.CompileAssemblyFromSource(cp, pre + inner + post); if (cr.Errors.Count > 0) break; methodCount++; if (methodCount % 10 == 0) System.Console.WriteLine(methodCount.ToString()); }

Sean Michael Murphy wrote:

Someone with more CPU and physical RAM than I have should run it and see where it ends...

No wonder, always use StringBuilder for string concatenation in a loop.

"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe

Dan Neely

Even assuming there is a constraint, you're talking about 2 totally different languages so why should they be the same?

-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer

Martin 0

Cannot been said to often! Good answere!

PIEBALDconsult

Well it can be said too often, but it's appropriate here.

Sean Michael Murphy

dnh wrote:

No wonder, always use StringBuilder for string concatenation in a loop.

Hmmm. Interesting. When I originally undertook to code this snippet to try to figure an answer to this guys question, optimization was pretty far from my mind. I mean, I cranked the original bit of code out in 15 minutes (or so) and had originally coded it so the methods would be recreated every time. I took another 5 minutes and optimized it so that only 1 method (the new one) would have to be concatenated to the "guts", which was then stuck in between the fixed "header" and "footer" of the class. It ran slowly, but I assumed that most of the overhead was in the actual code compilation (compiling classes of 15000 lines), and not a little bit of string concatenation. So I've re-written it using StringBuilder and timed both versions for 500 iterations. The original code did 500 iterations on my PC in 161.5222 seconds. This version:

StringBuilder inner = new StringBuilder();

DateTime startTime = DateTime.Now;

for (Int32 i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
   inner.Append(" public Int32 Method" + methodCount.ToString() + "() {" + Environment.NewLine +
                " return 42;" + Environment.NewLine +
                " }" + Environment.NewLine);

   StringBuilder code = new StringBuilder(pre);
   code.Append(inner);
   code.Append(post);
   cr = icc.CompileAssemblyFromSource(cp, code.ToString());

   if (cr.Errors.Count > 0)
      break;

   methodCount++;

   if (methodCount % 10 == 0)
      System.Console.WriteLine(methodCount.ToString());
}

TimeSpan ts = DateTime.Now - startTime;

System.Console.WriteLine(ts.TotalSeconds);

did it in 160.111. Much less that 1% slower. Not a string concatenation to be found, except for the line joins. Anything to add? Thanks. Sean

DavidNohejl

Sean Michael Murphy wrote:

Anything to add?

I'd agree that most time takes compilation, but the thing about string concatenation with + is that it's -unlike compilation - completely unnecessary. And I don't think that using StringBuilder for concatenating strings in big loops is optimalization - I think it's something you should do without thinking. btw you're still allocating 7 or so strings in

inner.Append("      public Int32 Method" + methodCount.ToString() + "() {" + Environment.NewLine +
                "         return 42;" + Environment.NewLine +
                "      }" + Environment.NewLine);

every cycle, that's 3500 unnecessary allocations :) Anyway, cool way to check for number of methods limit indeed.

"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe