Difference between declaring variables before or i

Question

I have always wondered if, in general, declaring a throw-away variable before a loop, as opposed to repeatedly inside the loop, makes any (performance) difference? A (quite pointless) example in Java:

a) declaration before loop:

double intermediateResult;
for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    intermediateResult = i;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

b) declaration (repeatedly) inside loop:

for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    double intermediateResult = i;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

Which one is better, a or b?

I suspect that repeated variable declaration (example b) creates more overhead in theory, but that compilers are smart enough so that it doesn't matter. Example b has the advantage of being more compact and limiting the scope of the variable to where it is used. Still, I tend to code according example a.

Edit: I am especially interested in the Java case.

Answer 1

Tried the same thing in Go, and compared the compiler output using go tool compile -S with go 1.9.4

Zero difference, as per the assembler output.

Answer 2

It depends on the language and the exact use. For instance, in C# 1 it made no difference. In C# 2, if the local variable is captured by an anonymous method (or lambda expression in C# 3) it can make a very signficant difference.

Example:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

class Test
{
    static void Main()
    {
        List<Action> actions = new List<Action>();

        int outer;
        for (int i=0; i < 10; i++)
        {
            outer = i;
            int inner = i;
            actions.Add(() => Console.WriteLine("Inner={0}, Outer={1}", inner, outer));
        }

        foreach (Action action in actions)
        {
            action();
        }
    }
}

Output:

Inner=0, Outer=9
Inner=1, Outer=9
Inner=2, Outer=9
Inner=3, Outer=9
Inner=4, Outer=9
Inner=5, Outer=9
Inner=6, Outer=9
Inner=7, Outer=9
Inner=8, Outer=9
Inner=9, Outer=9

The difference is that all of the actions capture the same outer variable, but each has its own separate inner variable.

Answer 3

I would always use A (rather than relying on the compiler) and might also rewrite to:

for(int i=0, double intermediateResult=0; i<1000; i++){
    intermediateResult = i;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

This still restricts intermediateResult to the loop's scope, but doesn't redeclare during each iteration.

Answer 4

Even if I know my compiler is smart enough, I won't like to rely on it, and will use the a) variant.

The b) variant makes sense to me only if you desperately need to make the intermediateResult unavailable after the loop body. But I can't imagine such desperate situation, anyway....

EDIT: Jon Skeet made a very good point, showing that variable declaration inside a loop can make an actual semantic difference.

Answer 5

The following is what I wrote and compiled in .NET.

double r0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    r0 = i*i;
    Console.WriteLine(r0);
}

for (int j = 0; j < 1000; j++) {
    double r1 = j*j;
    Console.WriteLine(r1);
}

This is what I get from .NET Reflector when CIL is rendered back into code.

for (int i = 0; i < 0x3e8; i++)
{
    double r0 = i * i;
    Console.WriteLine(r0);
}
for (int j = 0; j < 0x3e8; j++)
{
    double r1 = j * j;
    Console.WriteLine(r1);
}

So both look exactly same after compilation. In managed languages code is converted into CL/byte code and at time of execution it's converted into machine language. So in machine language a double may not even be created on the stack. It may just be a register as code reflect that it is a temporary variable for WriteLine function. There are a whole set optimization rules just for loops. So the average guy shouldn't be worried about it, especially in managed languages. There are cases when you can optimize manage code, for example, if you have to concatenate a large number of strings using just string a; a+=anotherstring[i] vs using StringBuilder. There is very big difference in performance between both. There are a lot of such cases where the compiler cannot optimize your code, because it cannot figure out what is intended in a bigger scope. But it can pretty much optimize basic things for you.

Answer 6

I made a simple test:

int b;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    b = i;
}

vs

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    int b = i;
}

I compiled these codes with gcc - 5.2.0. And then I disassembled the main () of these two codes and that's the result:

1º:

   0x00000000004004b6 <+0>:     push   rbp
   0x00000000004004b7 <+1>:     mov    rbp,rsp
   0x00000000004004ba <+4>:     mov    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4],0x0
   0x00000000004004c1 <+11>:    jmp    0x4004cd <main+23>
   0x00000000004004c3 <+13>:    mov    eax,DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4]
   0x00000000004004c6 <+16>:    mov    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x8],eax
   0x00000000004004c9 <+19>:    add    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4],0x1
   0x00000000004004cd <+23>:    cmp    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4],0x9
   0x00000000004004d1 <+27>:    jle    0x4004c3 <main+13>
   0x00000000004004d3 <+29>:    mov    eax,0x0
   0x00000000004004d8 <+34>:    pop    rbp
   0x00000000004004d9 <+35>:    ret

vs

2º

   0x00000000004004b6 <+0>: push   rbp
   0x00000000004004b7 <+1>: mov    rbp,rsp
   0x00000000004004ba <+4>: mov    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4],0x0
   0x00000000004004c1 <+11>:    jmp    0x4004cd <main+23>
   0x00000000004004c3 <+13>:    mov    eax,DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4]
   0x00000000004004c6 <+16>:    mov    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x8],eax
   0x00000000004004c9 <+19>:    add    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4],0x1
   0x00000000004004cd <+23>:    cmp    DWORD PTR [rbp-0x4],0x9
   0x00000000004004d1 <+27>:    jle    0x4004c3 <main+13>
   0x00000000004004d3 <+29>:    mov    eax,0x0
   0x00000000004004d8 <+34>:    pop    rbp
   0x00000000004004d9 <+35>:    ret 

Which are exaclty the same asm result. isn't a proof that the two codes produce the same thing?