Is There Any Performance Difference Between ++I and I++ in C#

Is there any performance difference between ++i and i++ in C#?

There is no difference in the generated intermediate code for ++i and i++ in this case. Given this program:

class Program
{
const int counter = 1024 * 1024;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < counter; ++i)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}

for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
}

The generated IL code is the same for both loops:

  IL_0000:  ldc.i4.0
IL_0001: stloc.0
// Start of first loop
IL_0002: ldc.i4.0
IL_0003: stloc.0
IL_0004: br.s IL_0010
IL_0006: ldloc.0
IL_0007: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(int32)
IL_000c: ldloc.0
IL_000d: ldc.i4.1
IL_000e: add
IL_000f: stloc.0
IL_0010: ldloc.0
IL_0011: ldc.i4 0x100000
IL_0016: blt.s IL_0006
// Start of second loop
IL_0018: ldc.i4.0
IL_0019: stloc.0
IL_001a: br.s IL_0026
IL_001c: ldloc.0
IL_001d: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(int32)
IL_0022: ldloc.0
IL_0023: ldc.i4.1
IL_0024: add
IL_0025: stloc.0
IL_0026: ldloc.0
IL_0027: ldc.i4 0x100000
IL_002c: blt.s IL_001c
IL_002e: ret

That said, it's possible (although highly unlikely) that the JIT compiler can do some optimizations in certain contexts that will favor one version over the other. If there is such an optimization, though, it would likely only affect the final (or perhaps the first) iteration of a loop.

In short, there will be no difference in the runtime of simple pre-increment or post-increment of the control variable in the looping construct that you've described.

Is there any performance difference with ++i vs i += 1 in C#?

It is easy to answer: the C# compiler translates C# source code to IL opcodes. There is no dedicated IL opcode that performs the equivalent of the ++ operator. Which is easy to see if you look at the generated IL with the ildasm.exe tool. This sample C# snippet:

        int ix = 0;
ix++;
ix = ix + 1;

Generates:

  IL_0000:  ldc.i4.0               // load 0
IL_0001: stloc.0 // ix = 0

IL_0002: ldloc.0 // load ix
IL_0003: ldc.i4.1 // load 1
IL_0004: add // ix + 1
IL_0005: stloc.0 // ix = ix + 1

IL_0006: ldloc.0 // load ix
IL_0007: ldc.i4.1 // load 1
IL_0008: add // ix + 1
IL_0009: stloc.0 // ix = ix + 1

It generates the exact same code. Nothing the jitter can do but generate machine code that is equally fast.

The pre/post increment operator is syntax sugar in C#, use it wherever it makes your code more legible. Or perhaps more relevant: avoid it where it makes it less legible. They do have a knack for letting you create expressions that have too many side-effects.

What is the difference between i++ and ++i?

Oddly it looks like the other two answers don't spell it out, and it's definitely worth saying:


i++ means 'tell me the value of i, then increment'

++i means 'increment i, then tell me the value'


They are Pre-increment, post-increment operators. In both cases the variable is incremented, but if you were to take the value of both expressions in exactly the same cases, the result will differ.

Is there a performance difference between int i =0 and int i = default(int)?

No, they are resolved at compile time and produce the same IL. Value types will be 0 (or false if you have a bool, but that's still 0) and reference types are null.

C# for-loop performance estimates: i++ vs. ++i implementation: which is faster?

The optimizer should know that the pre-incremented value of i is never used, and therefore they should be the same (simply increment i).

The only reason i++ may be slower than ++i is if the compiler has to save off the old, pre-incremented value before incrementing i. However, given low register pressure, this should be as trivial as one additional "move" instruction.

If you really care, I would suggest you benchmark your test cases. Stopwatch provides enough functionality to get a pretty good estimation.

Also, looking at the generated IL will show you if there is any difference at all.

What is the difference between ++i and i++?

  • ++i will increment the value of i, and then return the incremented value.

     i = 1;
    j = ++i;
    (i is 2, j is 2)
  • i++ will increment the value of i, but return the original value that i held before being incremented.

     i = 1;
    j = i++;
    (i is 2, j is 1)

For a for loop, either works. ++i seems more common, perhaps because that is what is used in K&R.

In any case, follow the guideline "prefer ++i over i++" and you won't go wrong.

There's a couple of comments regarding the efficiency of ++i and i++. In any non-student-project compiler, there will be no performance difference. You can verify this by looking at the generated code, which will be identical.

The efficiency question is interesting... here's my attempt at an answer:
Is there a performance difference between i++ and ++i in C?

As @OnFreund notes, it's different for a C++ object, since operator++() is a function and the compiler can't know to optimize away the creation of a temporary object to hold the intermediate value.

Is there a performance difference between i++ and ++i in C?

Executive summary: No.

i++ could potentially be slower than ++i, since the old value of i
might need to be saved for later use, but in practice all modern
compilers will optimize this away.

We can demonstrate this by looking at the code for this function,
both with ++i and i++.

$ cat i++.c
extern void g(int i);
void f()
{
int i;

for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
g(i);

}

The files are the same, except for ++i and i++:

$ diff i++.c ++i.c
6c6
< for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
---
> for (i = 0; i < 100; ++i)

We'll compile them, and also get the generated assembler:

$ gcc -c i++.c ++i.c
$ gcc -S i++.c ++i.c

And we can see that both the generated object and assembler files are the same.

$ md5 i++.s ++i.s
MD5 (i++.s) = 90f620dda862cd0205cd5db1f2c8c06e
MD5 (++i.s) = 90f620dda862cd0205cd5db1f2c8c06e

$ md5 *.o
MD5 (++i.o) = dd3ef1408d3a9e4287facccec53f7d22
MD5 (i++.o) = dd3ef1408d3a9e4287facccec53f7d22

Performance difference between ?? and ==

There is yet another possible expression in your case:

non_nullable = nullable.HasValue && nullable.Value;

I don't exactly know if this will actually be slower than the other specified variants, since the operators on the nullable types are probably overloaded in the Nullable<T> structure as well and would involve method invocations as well. If you want to be sure about that, you will have to investigate and/or benchmark it.

As for the whole discussion about performance: I think it is better to first express your code as "naturally" as possible for future maintenance. Investigate performance improvements only when necessary. As Donald Knuth said: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil."

My advice about which expression to use would be to initially use the one that expresses your intent as clearly as possible. My personal choice would be: nullable == true.

Performance difference between equals and ID comparison

It all depends on how your Equals method is implemented. If you don't override it, the default behavior is to compare references, so two distinct instances with the same ID won't be considered equal. So it's not just a question of performance, but also a question of correctness.

Now, assuming you implement Equals so that it compares the IDs of the two instances: it will be a bit slower than the IDs directly (because of the overhead of calling a virtual method), but the difference will probably be too small to be noticeable.

Is there a performance difference between i++ and ++i in C++?

[Executive Summary: Use ++i if you don't have a specific reason to use i++.]

For C++, the answer is a bit more complicated.

If i is a simple type (not an instance of a C++ class), then the answer given for C ("No there is no performance difference") holds, since the compiler is generating the code.

However, if i is an instance of a C++ class, then i++ and ++i are making calls to one of the operator++ functions. Here's a standard pair of these functions:

Foo& Foo::operator++()   // called for ++i
{
this->data += 1;
return *this;
}

Foo Foo::operator++(int ignored_dummy_value) // called for i++
{
Foo tmp(*this); // variable "tmp" cannot be optimized away by the compiler
++(*this);
return tmp;
}

Since the compiler isn't generating code, but just calling an operator++ function, there is no way to optimize away the tmp variable and its associated copy constructor. If the copy constructor is expensive, then this can have a significant performance impact.



Related Topics



Leave a reply



Submit