For Loop- Post increment, pre increment count

Code:

---

for (int i = 0; i<=12; i++)
                cout << i << endl;

---

The code above and below gives the same output.
0
1
2
.
.
12
But i think it should start output from 1 for the code below.

Code:

---

for (int i = 0; i<=12; ++i)
                cout << i << endl;

---

Quote:

---

But i think it should start output from 1 for the code below.

---

The for statement :

Code:

---

for ( init-expression ; cond-expression ; loop-expression )
  statement

---

First the init-expression is executed once.The the cond-expression is evaluated before it continues to the statement. At the end the loop-expression is executed.

- petter

The code is equivalent to:

Code:

---

int i=0;
while ( i <= 12 )
{
  cout << i << endl;
  ++i;
}

---

Makes no difference if you do i++ or ++i. The latter is preferable as it is sometimes more efficient (eg looping with iterators that are not pointers) and never less efficient.

okay, fine but then it creates confusion about the concept of post increment & preincrement operator in general. When exactly does the value of post increment is updated if not immediately like pre increment operator (in general, not specifically here).This is quite mysterious for me.

Quote:

---

When exactly does the value of post increment is updated if not immediately like pre increment operator (in general, not specifically here).

---

Basically every expression evaluates to a value:

Code:

---

// this evaluates to the value of i
i;

// this also evaluates the original value of i (but at the same time i is incremented by one)
i++;

// this evaluates to the new value of i (after i is incremented by one)
++i;

---

Code:

---

// i is assigned to j before i is incremented
j = i++;

// i is first incremented, and then assigned to j
j = ++i;

---

- petter

You can see the difference best if you see the operators as a function:

Code:

---

int PreIncrement(int a)
{
  a = a + 1;
  return a;
}

int PostIncrement(int a)
{
  int temp = a;    // This is the reason why it is slightly slower
  a = a + 1;
  return temp;
}

---

then for post increment, 13 should be printed...
First time, 0 is printed after intialisation and conditional comparison.
Then i++(i=i+1) evaluates to 0, compares with <=12, Prints 1(cout statement)
i++ evaluates to 1, compares with <=12, Prints 2
i++ evaluates to 2, compares with <=12, Prints 3
i++ evaluates to 3, compares with <=12, Prints 4
i++ evaluates to 4, compares with <=12, Prints 5
i++ evaluates to 5, compares with <=12, Prints 6
i++ evaluates to 6, compares with <=12, Prints 7
i++ evaluates to 7, compares with <=12, Prints 8
i++ evaluates to 8, compares with <=12, Prints 9
i++ evaluates to 9, compares with <=12, Prints 10
i++ evaluates to 10, compares with <=12, Prints 11
i++ evaluates to 11, compares with <=12, Prints 12
i++ evaluates to 12, compares with <=12, Prints 13(//Why this doesn't happen)

Quote:

---

then for post increment, 13 should be printed...
First time, 0 is printed after intialisation and conditional comparison.
Then i++(i=i+1) evaluates to 0, compares with <=12, Prints 1(cout statement)

---

Quote:

---

i++ evaluates to 12, compares with <=12, Prints 13(//Why this doesn't happen)

---

The expression 'i++' (by itself) evaluates to 0 (and increase i to 1), but the cond-expression is a differenct expression and sees i as 1 (not 0).

- petter

That means for i++, if we cout we get original value but when we use it in an expression the updated or incremented value is used.Am i right if i use this generalisation?

Quote:

---

That means for i++, if we cout we get original value but when we use it in an expression the updated or incremented value is used.Am i right if i use this generalisation?

---

No. You'll always 'get' the original value when using i++. With ++i you 'get' the updated value.

Code:

---

// in this example i becomes 7 and j becomes 6 + 5 = 11
int i = 6;
int j = (i++) + 5;

// in this example i becomes 7 and j becomes (6+1) + 5 = 12
int i = 6;
int j = (++i) + 5;

---

- petter

Some very good explanations here. They should help you out quite a bit.
Just my two cents here, the way I was taught when I learned C++.

When used by itself (i.e. not in an expression) it does not not matter
whether you use post or pre incrementation

I.e.

Code:

---

for ( int i=0; i <=12; i++)

---

Or..

Code:

---

for ( int i=0; i <=12; ++i )

---

Now pre-incrementation does reduce CPU cycles because it uses one
less instruction than post incrementation, but this will make little to no
difference in most programs that you write. At least while in the learning phase :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcjr84

Now pre-incrementation does reduce CPU cycles because it uses one
less instruction than post incrementation, but this will make little to no
difference in most programs that you write. At least while in the learning phase

---

One less instruction?
Not for builtin types.
For builtin types, there is no difference, as long as the yielded value is not used (at least for all common compiler, including Turbo C++ 1.0).

And, if the yielded value is used, such as in:
*p++ vs *++p, then the post-increment is likely to be a bit faster (not significantly) on modern CPU.

Because, instead of:

Code:

---

; pre-increment with space optimization
inc esi
mov eax,[esi] ; AGI stall (on pentium CPU) + dependency

; pre-increment with speed optimization
mov eax,[esi+1] ; four bytes of code are lost, but 1 or 2 CPU cycles gained.
inc esi

; post-increment with speed or space optimization
mov eax,[esi]
inc esi

---

Of course, that is more subtle than that, if other operations are combined, but *p++ is easier to optimize than *++p.

However, for iterators, ++p is very often MUCH faster than p++.

So, the rule is : Use ++p as often as you can, and p++ only if you need it (that is, almost never).

An example of judicious use of it++ is the removal of an item in a list (not an STL std::list) or similar container:

Code:

---

lst.erase(it++); // exception safe : Atomicity, Consistency and Isolation, even if iterator assignments can throw.
// However, it=lst.erase(it), is fine with STL containers since iterators copy-assignment operators can't throw.

---

Thanks for the correction SuperKoko, I appreciate the post.
I was only trying to say that in general, it is really not going to make a noticeble difference in performance whether you use ++i or i++. Unless you have some specific reason for speed/efficiency optimization.

Thanks all for enlightening explanations. Just a final confirmation frm ur side:

Code:

---

i=0;
i++;
cout << i;

---

output will be 1.

Code:

---

i=0;
++i;
cout << i;

---

output will be 1.

is it okay.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erankushmehta

Thanks all for enlightening explanations. Just a final confirmation frm ur side:

Code:

---

i=0;
i++;
cout << i;

---

output will be 1.

Code:

---

i=0;
++i;
cout << i;

---

output will be 1.

is it okay.. :)

---

Yes!
That's okay!