**Summary:** C#/.NET is supposed to be garbage collected. C# has a destructor, used to clean resources. What happen when an object A is garbage collected the same line I try to clone one of its variable members? Apparently, on multiprocessors, sometimes, the garbage collector wins...

**The problem**

Today, on a training session on C#, the teacher showed us some code which contained a bug only when run on multiprocessors.

I'll summarize to say that sometimes, the compiler or the JIT screws up by calling the finalizer of a C# class object before returning from its called method.

The full code, given in Visual C++ 2005 documentation, will be posted as an "answer" to avoid making a very very large questions, but the essential are below:

The following class has a "Hash" property which will return a cloned copy of an internal array. At is construction, the first item of the array has a value of 2. In the destructor, its value is set to zero.

The point is: If you try to get the "Hash" property of "Example", you'll get a clean copy of the array, whose first item is still 2, as the object is being used (and as such, not being garbage collected/finalized):

```
public class Example
{
    private int nValue;
    public int N { get { return nValue; } }

    // The Hash property is slower because it clones an array. When
    // KeepAlive is not used, the finalizer sometimes runs before 
    // the Hash property value is read.

    private byte[] hashValue;
    public byte[] Hash { get { return (byte[])hashValue.Clone(); } }

    public Example()
    {
        nValue = 2;
        hashValue = new byte[20];
        hashValue[0] = 2;
    }

    ~Example()
    {
        nValue = 0;

        if (hashValue != null)
        {
            Array.Clear(hashValue, 0, hashValue.Length);
        }
    }
}

```

But nothing is so simple...
The code using this class is wokring inside a thread, and of course, for the test, the app is heavily multithreaded:

```
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
    Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ThreadProc));
    t.Start();
    t.Join();
}

private static void ThreadProc()
{
    // running is a boolean which is always true until
    // the user press ENTER
    while (running) DoWork();
}

```

The DoWork static method is the code where the problem happens:

```
private static void DoWork()
{
    Example ex = new Example();

    byte[] res = ex.Hash; // [1]

    // If the finalizer runs before the call to the Hash 
    // property completes, the hashValue array might be
    // cleared before the property value is read. The 
    // following test detects that.

    if (res[0] != 2)
    {
        // Oops... The finalizer of ex was launched before
        // the Hash method/property completed
    }
}

```

Once every 1,000,000 excutions of DoWork, apparently, the Garbage Collector does its magic, and tries to reclaim "ex", as it is not anymore referenced in the remaning code of the function, and this time, it is faster than the "Hash" get method. So what we have in the end is a clone of a zero-ed byte array, instead of having the right one (with the 1st item at 2).

My guess is that there is inlining of the code, which essentially replaces the line marked [1] in the DoWork function by something like:

```
    // Supposed inlined processing
    byte[] res2 = ex.Hash2;
    // note that after this line, "ex" could be garbage collected,
    // but not res2
    byte[] res = (byte[])res2.Clone();

```

If we supposed Hash2 is a simple accessor coded like:

```
// Hash2 code:
public byte[] Hash2 { get { return (byte[])hashValue; } }

```

So, the question is: **Is this supposed to work that way in C#/.NET, or could this be considered as a bug of either the compiler of the JIT?**

edit
====

See Chris Brumme's and Chris Lyons' blogs for an explanation.

<http://blogs.msdn.com/cbrumme/archive/2003/04/19/51365.aspx>  

<http://blogs.msdn.com/clyon/archive/2004/09/21/232445.aspx>

Everyone's answer was interesting, but I couldn't choose one better than the other. So I gave you all a +1...

Sorry

:-)

Edit 2
======

I was unable to reproduce the problem on Linux/Ubuntu/Mono, despite using the same code on the same conditions (multiple same executable running simultaneously, release mode, etc.)