在循环中声明变量是否有任何开销?(C++)

Is there any overhead to declaring a variable within a loop? (C++)(在循环中声明变量是否有任何开销?(C++))
本文介绍了在循环中声明变量是否有任何开销?(C++)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跟版网的小编来一起学习吧!

问题描述

我只是想知道如果你做这样的事情是否会降低速度或效率:

I am just wondering if there would be any loss of speed or efficiency if you did something like this:

int i = 0;
while(i < 100)
{
    int var = 4;
    i++;
}

声明 int var 一百次.在我看来好像会有,但我不确定.这样做会更实用/更快吗:

which declares int var one hundred times. It seems to me like there would be, but I'm not sure. would it be more practical/faster to do this instead:

int i = 0;
int var;
while(i < 100)
{
    var = 4;
    i++;
}

或者它们在速度和效率方面是否相同?

or are they the same, speedwise and efficiency-wise?

推荐答案

局部变量的栈空间通常在函数作用域内分配.所以循环内部不会发生堆栈指针调整,只是将 4 分配给 var.因此,这两个代码段具有相同的开销.

Stack space for local variables is usually allocated in function scope. So no stack pointer adjustment happens inside the loop, just assigning 4 to var. Therefore these two snippets have the same overhead.

这篇关于在循环中声明变量是否有任何开销?(C++)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跟版网!

本站部分内容来源互联网,如果有图片或者内容侵犯了您的权益,请联系我们,我们会在确认后第一时间进行删除!

相关文档推荐

Unable to access non-const member functions of objects in C++ std::set(无法访问 C++ std::set 中对象的非常量成员函数)
Constructing std::function argument from lambda(从 lambda 构造 std::function 参数)
STL BigInt class implementation(STL BigInt 类实现)
Sync is unreliable using std::atomic and std::condition_variable(使用 std::atomic 和 std::condition_variable 同步不可靠)
Move list element to the end in STL(在 STL 中将列表元素移动到末尾)
Why is overloading operatoramp;() prohibited for classes stored in STL containers?(为什么禁止对存储在 STL 容器中的类重载 operatoramp;()?)