理论上，try/catch块不会对代码行为产生影响，除非实际发生异常。然而，在一些罕见的情况下，try/catch块的存在可能会产生重大影响，而在一些不常见但并不晦涩的情况下，这种影响可能是显而易见的。这样做的原因是给定的代码如下:

Action q;
double thing1()
  { double total; for (int i=0; i<1000000; i++) total+=1.0/i; return total;}
double thing2()
  { q=null; return 1.0;}
...
x=thing1();     // statement1
x=thing2(x);    // statement2
doSomething(x); // statement3

编译器可以基于保证statement2在statement3之前执行这一事实来优化statement1。如果编译器可以识别出thing1没有副作用，并且thing2实际上没有使用x，那么它可以安全地完全省略thing1。如果thing1是昂贵的，这可能是一个主要的优化，尽管thing1是昂贵的情况也是编译器最不可能优化的。假设代码被更改:

x=thing1();      // statement1
try
{ x=thing2(x); } // statement2
catch { q(); }
doSomething(x);  // statement3

Now there exists a sequence of events where statement3 could execute without statement2 having executed. Even if nothing in the code for thing2 could throw an exception, it would be possible that another thread could use an Interlocked.CompareExchange to notice that q was cleared and set it to Thread.ResetAbort, and then perform a Thread.Abort() before statement2 wrote its value to x. Then the catch would execute Thread.ResetAbort() [via delegate q], allowing execution to continue with statement3. Such a sequence of events would of course be exceptionally improbable, but a compiler is required to generate code which work according to specification even when such improbable events occur.

一般来说，编译器更有可能注意到遗漏简单代码而不是复杂代码的机会，因此如果从未抛出异常，try/catch很少会对性能产生很大影响。尽管如此，在某些情况下，try/catch块的存在可能会阻止优化——如果没有try/catch的话——可以让代码运行得更快。

. net异常模型的非常全面的解释。

Rico Mariani的性能花絮:异常成本:何时抛出，何时不抛出

The first kind of cost is the static cost of having exception handling in your code at all. Managed exceptions actually do comparatively well here, by which I mean the static cost can be much lower than say in C++. Why is this? Well, static cost is really incurred in two kinds of places: First, the actual sites of try/finally/catch/throw where there's code for those constructs. Second, in unmanged code, there's the stealth cost associated with keeping track of all the objects that must be destructed in the event that an exception is thrown. There's a considerable amount of cleanup logic that must be present and the sneaky part is that even code that doesn't itself throw or catch or otherwise have any overt use of exceptions still bears the burden of knowing how to clean up after itself.

德米特里·扎斯拉夫斯基：

根据Chris Brumme的注释:有 还有一个与事实有关的成本 有些优化没有进行 由JIT在现场执行 抓

try catch块对性能的影响可以忽略不计，但异常抛出可能相当大，这可能是你的同事感到困惑的地方。

我在一个紧密循环中测试了try. catch的实际影响，它本身太小，在任何正常情况下都不会成为性能问题。

如果循环只做了很少的工作(在我的测试中，我做了一个x++)，您可以测量异常处理的影响。带有异常处理的循环的运行时间大约长了10倍。

如果循环做一些实际的工作(在我的测试中，我调用Int32。解析方法)，异常处理的影响太小，无法测量。通过交换循环的顺序，我得到了更大的差异……

理论上，try/catch块不会对代码行为产生影响，除非实际发生异常。然而，在一些罕见的情况下，try/catch块的存在可能会产生重大影响，而在一些不常见但并不晦涩的情况下，这种影响可能是显而易见的。这样做的原因是给定的代码如下:

Action q;
double thing1()
  { double total; for (int i=0; i<1000000; i++) total+=1.0/i; return total;}
double thing2()
  { q=null; return 1.0;}
...
x=thing1();     // statement1
x=thing2(x);    // statement2
doSomething(x); // statement3

编译器可以基于保证statement2在statement3之前执行这一事实来优化statement1。如果编译器可以识别出thing1没有副作用，并且thing2实际上没有使用x，那么它可以安全地完全省略thing1。如果thing1是昂贵的，这可能是一个主要的优化，尽管thing1是昂贵的情况也是编译器最不可能优化的。假设代码被更改:

x=thing1();      // statement1
try
{ x=thing2(x); } // statement2
catch { q(); }
doSomething(x);  // statement3

Now there exists a sequence of events where statement3 could execute without statement2 having executed. Even if nothing in the code for thing2 could throw an exception, it would be possible that another thread could use an Interlocked.CompareExchange to notice that q was cleared and set it to Thread.ResetAbort, and then perform a Thread.Abort() before statement2 wrote its value to x. Then the catch would execute Thread.ResetAbort() [via delegate q], allowing execution to continue with statement3. Such a sequence of events would of course be exceptionally improbable, but a compiler is required to generate code which work according to specification even when such improbable events occur.

一般来说，编译器更有可能注意到遗漏简单代码而不是复杂代码的机会，因此如果从未抛出异常，try/catch很少会对性能产生很大影响。尽管如此，在某些情况下，try/catch块的存在可能会阻止优化——如果没有try/catch的话——可以让代码运行得更快。

不。如果try/finally块排除的琐碎优化实际上对您的程序有可衡量的影响，那么您可能一开始就不应该使用. net。