if(a() && b() && c() && d())
doSomething();
if(a())
if(b())
if(c())
if(d())
doSomething();
Is there "any" performance difference between these two?
For example, in a situation that a() turns 0, will it keep running b(), c() and d() in the first if statement? Or will it work same as the second nested if statement?
They're exactly identical.
To test this yourself, run gcc -S test.c
(presuming that this is where you've put your source) and observe the contents of test.s
.
Here's how the nested-if
approach compiles in gcc 4.8.1 with default options (annotated with comments):
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
movl $0, %eax
call A # try to call A
testl %eax, %eax # look at its return value
je .L3 # short-circuit if it returned 0
movl $0, %eax # ...repeat for B, et al.
call B
testl %eax, %eax
je .L3
movl $0, %eax
call C
testl %eax, %eax
je .L3
movl $0, %eax
call D
testl %eax, %eax
je .L3
movl $0, %eax
call doSomething
.L3:
popq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
Here's how the &&
approach compiles:
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
movl $0, %eax
call A # try to call A
testl %eax, %eax # look at its return value
je .L3 # short-circuit if it returned 0
movl $0, %eax # ...repeat for B, et al.
call B
testl %eax, %eax
je .L3
movl $0, %eax
call C
testl %eax, %eax
je .L3
movl $0, %eax
call D
testl %eax, %eax
je .L3
movl $0, %eax
call doSomething
.L3:
popq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25473040/nested-if-statements-and-operator