After some searching on our friend google, I could not get a clear view on the following point.
I'm used to call class members with this->
. Even if not needed, I find it more explicit as it helps when maintaining some heavy piece of algorithm with loads of vars.
As I'm working on a supposed-to-be-optimised algorithm, I was wondering whether using this->
would alter runtime performance or not.
Does it ?
No, the call is exactly the same in both cases.
It doesn't make any difference. Here's a demonstration with GCC. The source is simple class, but I've restricted this post to the difference for clarity.
% diff -s with-this.cpp without-this.cpp
7c7
< this->x = 5;
---
> x = 5;
% g++ -c with-this.cpp without-this.cpp
% diff -s with-this.o without-this.o
Files with-this.o and without-this.o are identical
Answer has been given by zennehoy and here's assembly code (generated by Microsoft C++ compiler) for a simple test class:
class C
{
int n;
public:
void boo(){n = 1;}
void goo(){this->n = 2;}
};
int main()
{
C c;
c.boo();
c.goo();
return 0;
}
Disassembly Window in Visual Studio shows that assembly code is the same for both functions:
class C
{
int n;
public:
void boo(){n = 1;}
001B2F80 55 push ebp
001B2F81 8B EC mov ebp,esp
001B2F83 81 EC CC 00 00 00 sub esp,0CCh
001B2F89 53 push ebx
001B2F8A 56 push esi
001B2F8B 57 push edi
001B2F8C 51 push ecx
001B2F8D 8D BD 34 FF FF FF lea edi,[ebp-0CCh]
001B2F93 B9 33 00 00 00 mov ecx,33h
001B2F98 B8 CC CC CC CC mov eax,0CCCCCCCCh
001B2F9D F3 AB rep stos dword ptr es:[edi]
001B2F9F 59 pop ecx
001B2FA0 89 4D F8 mov dword ptr [ebp-8],ecx
001B2FA3 8B 45 F8 mov eax,dword ptr [this]
001B2FA6 C7 00 01 00 00 00 mov dword ptr [eax],1
001B2FAC 5F pop edi
001B2FAD 5E pop esi
001B2FAE 5B pop ebx
001B2FAF 8B E5 mov esp,ebp
001B2FB1 5D pop ebp
001B2FB2 C3 ret
...
--- ..\main.cpp -----------------------------
void goo(){this->n = 2;}
001B2FC0 55 push ebp
001B2FC1 8B EC mov ebp,esp
001B2FC3 81 EC CC 00 00 00 sub esp,0CCh
001B2FC9 53 push ebx
001B2FCA 56 push esi
001B2FCB 57 push edi
001B2FCC 51 push ecx
001B2FCD 8D BD 34 FF FF FF lea edi,[ebp-0CCh]
001B2FD3 B9 33 00 00 00 mov ecx,33h
001B2FD8 B8 CC CC CC CC mov eax,0CCCCCCCCh
001B2FDD F3 AB rep stos dword ptr es:[edi]
001B2FDF 59 pop ecx
001B2FE0 89 4D F8 mov dword ptr [ebp-8],ecx
001B2FE3 8B 45 F8 mov eax,dword ptr [this]
001B2FE6 C7 00 02 00 00 00 mov dword ptr [eax],2
001B2FEC 5F pop edi
001B2FED 5E pop esi
001B2FEE 5B pop ebx
001B2FEF 8B E5 mov esp,ebp
001B2FF1 5D pop ebp
001B2FF2 C3 ret
And the code in the main:
C c;
c.boo();
001B2F0E 8D 4D F8 lea ecx,[c]
001B2F11 E8 00 E4 FF FF call C::boo (1B1316h)
c.goo();
001B2F16 8D 4D F8 lea ecx,[c]
001B2F19 E8 29 E5 FF FF call C::goo (1B1447h)
Microsoft compiler uses __thiscall
calling convention by default for class member calls and this
pointer is passed via ECX register.
There are several layers involved in the compilation of a language.
The difference between accessing member
as member
, this->member
, MyClass::member
etc... is a syntactic difference.
More precisely, it's a matter of name lookup, and how the front-end of the compiler will "find" the exact element you are referring to. Therefore, you might speed up compilation by being more precise... though it will be unnoticeable (there are much more time-consuming tasks involved in C++, like opening all those includes).
Since (in this case) you are referring to the same element, it should not matter.
Now, an interesting parallel can be done with interpreted languages. In an interpreted language, the name lookup will be delayed to the moment where the line (or function) is called. Therefore, it could have an impact at runtime (though once again, probably not really noticeable).