我怀疑c#实际上是在调用int上定义的运算符+(它返回一个int，除非你在一个检查块中)，并隐式地将你的bytes/shorts都转换为int。这就是为什么行为看起来不一致。

这是我对这个话题的大部分回答，首先是针对这里的一个类似问题。

默认情况下，所有小于Int32的整数运算在计算前四舍五入到32位。结果为Int32的原因仅仅是让它在计算后保持原样。如果检查MSIL算术操作码，它们操作的唯一整型数字类型是Int32和Int64。这是“故意的”。

如果您希望结果以Int16格式返回，则在代码中执行强制转换或编译器(假设)在“底层”发出转换都无关紧要。

例如，要执行Int16算术:

short a = 2, b = 3;

short c = (short) (a + b);

这两个数字将扩展为32位，然后相加，然后截短为16位，这是MS所希望的。

使用短(或字节)的优势主要是在有大量数据(图形数据、流等)的情况下存储。

我已经测试了字节和int之间的性能。 int值:

class Program
{
    private int a,b,c,d,e,f;

    public Program()
    {
        a = 1;
        b = 2;
        c = (a + b);
        d = (a - b);
        e = (b / a);
        f = (c * b);
    }

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        int max = 10000000;
        DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
        Program[] tab = new Program[max];

        for (int i = 0; i < max; i++)
        {
            tab[i] = new Program();
        }
        DateTime stop = DateTime.Now;

        Debug.WriteLine(stop.Subtract(start).TotalSeconds);
    }
}

使用字节值:

class Program
{
    private byte a,b,c,d,e,f;

    public Program()
    {
        a = 1;
        b = 2;
        c = (byte)(a + b);
        d = (byte)(a - b);
        e = (byte)(b / a);
        f = (byte)(c * b);
    }

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        int max = 10000000;
        DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
        Program[] tab = new Program[max];

        for (int i = 0; i < max; i++)
        {
            tab[i] = new Program();
        }
        DateTime stop = DateTime.Now;

        Debug.WriteLine(stop.Subtract(start).TotalSeconds);
    }
}

结果如下: 字节:3.57s 157mo, 3.71s 171mo, 3.74s 168mo, CPU ~= 30% int: 4.05s 298mo, 3.92s 278mo, 4.28 294mo with CPU ~= 27% 结论: 字节使用更多的CPU，但它消耗更少的内存，它更快(可能是因为有更少的字节分配)

This was probably a practical decision on the part of the language designers. After all, an int is an Int32, a 32-bit signed integer. Whenever you do an integer operation on a type smaller than int, it's going to be converted to a 32 bit signed int by most any 32 bit CPU anyway. That, combined with the likelihood of overflowing small integers, probably sealed the deal. It saves you from the chore of continuously checking for over/under-flow, and when the final result of an expression on bytes would be in range, despite the fact that at some intermediate stage it would be out of range, you get a correct result.

另一种想法是:必须模拟这些类型上的溢出/欠流，因为它不会自然地发生在最可能的目标cpu上。何苦呢?

就“为什么会发生这种情况”而言，这是因为正如其他人所说的那样，c#中没有为byte、sbyte、short或ushort的算术定义任何操作符。这个答案是关于为什么没有定义这些操作符。

我相信这主要是为了性能。处理器具有本地操作，可以非常快速地处理32位的算术。可以自动地将结果转换回字节，但如果您不希望发生这种行为，则会导致性能损失。

我认为这在一个带注释的c#标准中提到过。看……

编辑:令人恼火的是，我现在已经查看了带注释的ECMA c# 2规范、带注释的MS c# 3规范和注释的CLI规范，但据我所知，它们都没有提到这一点。我相信我已经看到了上面给出的理由，但如果我知道在哪里，我就被吹了。对不起，参考粉丝们:(

除了所有其他伟大的评论，我想我要添加一个小花絮。很多评论都想知道为什么int、long和几乎任何其他数字类型都不遵循这个规则…返回一个“更大”的类型以响应算术。

A lot of answers have had to do with performance (well, 32bits is faster than 8bits). In reality, an 8bit number is still a 32bit number to a 32bit CPU....even if you add two bytes, the chunk of data the cpu operates on is going to be 32bits regardless...so adding ints is not going to be any "faster" than adding two bytes...its all the same to the cpu. NOW, adding two ints WILL be faster than adding two longs on a 32bit processor, because adding two longs requires more microops since you're working with numbers wider than the processors word.

I think the fundamental reason for causing byte arithmetic to result in ints is pretty clear and straight forward: 8bits just doesn't go very far! :D With 8 bits, you have an unsigned range of 0-255. That's not a whole lot of room to work with...the likelyhood that you are going to run into a bytes limitations is VERY high when using them in arithmetic. However, the chance that you're going to run out of bits when working with ints, or longs, or doubles, etc. is significantly lower...low enough that we very rarely encounter the need for more.

从字节到int的自动转换是合乎逻辑的，因为字节的规模是如此之小。从整型到长型，从浮点数到双精度浮点数等自动转换是不符合逻辑的，因为这些数字具有显著的比例。