Which is more effecient ?

[Amit]

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

Thanks.

[Tom St Denis]

Amit wrote:

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

Open ended question. Faster in what context? What compiler? What target?

To GCC it makes no nevermind. To an older compiler without an optimizer
++p is almost always faster [specially for older 8-bit MCUs].

Tom

[Mark McIntyre]

On 14 Jul 2003 13:49:00 -0700, in comp.lang.c ,
vi*******************@yahoo.com (Amit) wrote:

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

Since they do different things, the question is intrinsically
unanswerable:

char x[] = "hello world";
int i = 4;
int j = i;
char y = x[i++];
char z = x[++j];

Even if you're ignoring the side-effects, the answer is still
unanswerable - its implementation defined whether its faster to store
then increment, or increment then store.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Amit wrote:

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

It makes no difference to a good optimizing C compiler.
It could make a difference to an optimizing C++ compiler
if p is an object of a User Defined Type (UDT)
where operator++ has been overloaded.
Usually, p++ makes a copy of p, increments p
then returns the copy of the original value of p
but ++p simply increments p then returns a reference to p.
For this reason, C++ programmers try to use ++p instead of p++
even when it doesn't actually matter to the optimizing C++ compiler.
For example, C++ programmers might write

for (int j = 0; j < n; ++n) { }

instead of

for (int j = 0; j < n; n++) { }

just to help enforce a good habit.

[Christian Bau]

In article <49*************************@posting.google.com> ,
vi*******************@yahoo.com (Amit) wrote:

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

The short answer to this is: Write two programs, measure their execution
times. Try p += 1 and p = p + 1 as well. Can you measure any difference?
Does it matter?

The real answer is: If you worry which one is more efficient, then you
shouldn't worry about efficiency at all. You should worry about writing
code that does what it is supposed to do and that is readable, so
everyone reading the code knows that it does what it is supposed to do.

If you run into a situation where efficiency is important (for example:
You lose customers because it is too slow, or you get complaints about
the speed), then you need to learn about algorithms, profiling,
profiling, algorithms and profiling. Changing p++ to ++p won't get you
anywhere.

[Richard Bos]

Tom St Denis <to********@iahu.ca> wrote:

Amit wrote:

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

Open ended question. Faster in what context? What compiler? What target?

To GCC it makes no nevermind. To an older compiler without an optimizer
++p is almost always faster [specially for older 8-bit MCUs].

Erm, Tom... nonsense. C is not, and never has been, as broken as C++.

Richard

[Peter Shaggy Haywood]

Groovy hepcat Amit was jivin' on 14 Jul 2003 13:49:00 -0700 in
comp.lang.c.
Which is more effecient ?'s a cool scene! Dig it!

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

--

Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!

http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/
"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry & W. Walker.
I know it's not "technically correct" English; but since when was rock & roll "technically correct"?

[HongKongHooker]

"Peter "Shaggy" Haywood" <ph******@alphalink.com.au.STOP.SPAM> wrote in
message news:3f**************@news.alphalink.com.au...

Groovy hepcat Amit was jivin' on 14 Jul 2003 13:49:00 -0700 in
comp.lang.c.
Which is more effecient ?'s a cool scene! Dig it!

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

--

Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!

http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/
"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry &

W. Walker. I know it's not "technically correct" English; but since when was rock &

roll "technically correct"?

++p would be the more efficient because p wouldn't have to be evaluated
before being incremented.

Tell me if I'm wrong guys.

[Joona I Palaste]

HongKongHooker <su****@hooker.com> scribbled the following:

"Peter "Shaggy" Haywood" <ph******@alphalink.com.au.STOP.SPAM> wrote in
message news:3f**************@news.alphalink.com.au...

Groovy hepcat Amit was jivin' on 14 Jul 2003 13:49:00 -0700 in
comp.lang.c.
Which is more effecient ?'s a cool scene! Dig it!

>Which is more efficient and why?
>p++ or ++p.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

++p would be the more efficient because p wouldn't have to be evaluated
before being incremented. Tell me if I'm wrong guys.

This would be a sensible explanation, but no one is forcing C
implementations to be sensible. In other words: It depends entirely
on how C is implemented on your platform. The standard does not say:
"This operation must be efficient", "This operation must be
inefficient", or even "This operation must be more efficient than
that operation".

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"You could take his life and..."
- Mirja Tolsa

[Richard Bos]

"HongKongHooker" <su****@hooker.com> wrote:

"Peter "Shaggy" Haywood" <ph******@alphalink.com.au.STOP.SPAM> wrote in
message news:3f**************@news.alphalink.com.au...

Groovy hepcat Amit was jivin' on 14 Jul 2003 13:49:00 -0700 in
comp.lang.c.
Which is more effecient ?'s a cool scene! Dig it!

Which is more efficient and why?
p++ or ++p.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

++p would be the more efficient because p wouldn't have to be evaluated
before being incremented.

Tell me if I'm wrong guys.

You're not only wrong, you're silly. ++p evaluates p, increases it, and
returns the new value, not necessarily in that order. p++ evaluates p,
increases it, and returns the old value, not necessarily in that order.
You tell me where the difference is.

And _please_ remember that C is not C++.

Richard

[Chris Dollin]

HongKongHooker wrote:

re:

>Which is more efficient and why?
>p++ or ++p.

++p would be the more efficient because p wouldn't have to be evaluated
before being incremented.

Tell me if I'm wrong guys.

You're wrong.

If the value of p isn't required, it doesn't have to be evaluated
before being incremented.

If the value of p *is* required, only one of p++ and ++p is correct,
so the choice wouldn't be one of efficiency. [Otherwise just use 0,
which is typically *very* efficient.]

--
Chris "Zero [Wendy Rule]" Dollin
C FAQs at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgrou...mp.lang.c.html
C welcome: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambl...me_to_clc.html