为什么String.GetHashCode（）来实现不同的CLR的32位和64位版本？

本文介绍了为什么String.GetHashCode（）来实现不同的CLR的32位和64位版本？的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！ 问题描述 什么是string.GetHashCode（）的32位和64位版本之间的差异背后的技术原因是什么？What are the technical reasons behind the difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of string.GetHashCode()?更​​重要的是，为什么64比特版本似乎在遇到NUL字符终止其算法？例如，当64位CLR下运行下面的表达式都返回true。More importantly, why does the 64-bit version seem to terminate its algorithm when it encounters the NUL character? For example, the following expressions all return true when run under the 64-bit CLR."\0123456789".GetHashCode() == "\0987654321".GetHashCode()"\0AAAAAAAAA".GetHashCode() == "\0BBBBBBBBB".GetHashCode()"\0The".GetHashCode() == "\0Game".GetHashCode()这行为（错误？）表现为一个性能问题当我们用这样的字符串作为字典键。This behavior (bug?) manifested as a performance issue when we used such strings as keys in a Dictionary.推荐答案这看起来像一个已知的问题，微软将无法修复This looks like a known issue which Microsoft would not fix:正如你所提到的这将是一些程序（即使他们真的不应该依托重大更改关于这一点），这样做的风险被认为过高在当前版本中解决此问题。我同意碰撞的速度，这将导致在默认的字典< ;弦乐，对象>将这个被夸大。如果这是你的应用程序的性能产生不利影响，我会建议试图解决它通过使用词典构造函数接受一个的IEqualityComparer之一，这样可以提供更合适的GetHashCode的实现。我知道这是不理想，并希望得到这个固定在.NET Framework的未来版本I agree that the rate of collisions that this will cause in the default Dictionary<String, Object> will be inflated by this. If this is adversely effecting your applications performance, I would suggest trying to work around it by using one of the Dictionary constructors that takes an IEqualityComparer so you can provide a more appropriate GetHashCode implementation. I know this isn't ideal and would like to get this fixed in a future version of the .NET Framework.来源： Microsoft连接 - String.GetHashCode忽略超出64运行的第一个空字节字符串中的任何字符 这篇关于为什么String.GetHashCode（）来实现不同的CLR的32位和64位版本？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！