为什么下面的工作正常?
String str;
while (condition) {
str = calculateStr();
.....
}
但是下面这个被认为是危险的/不正确的:
while (condition) {
String str = calculateStr();
.....
}
有必要在循环之外声明变量吗?
为什么下面的工作正常?
String str;
while (condition) {
str = calculateStr();
.....
}
但是下面这个被认为是危险的/不正确的:
while (condition) {
String str = calculateStr();
.....
}
有必要在循环之外声明变量吗?
当前回答
请跳到最新的答案…
对于那些关心绩效的人,可以去掉系统。输出并将循环限制为1字节。使用double (test 1/2)和使用String(3/4),在Windows 7 Professional 64位和JDK-1.7.0_21上运行的时间以毫秒为单位,如下所示。字节码(下面也给出了test1和test2的字节码)是不同的。我懒得测试可变和相对复杂的对象。
双
Test1耗时:2710毫秒
Test2耗时:2790毫秒
字符串(在测试中用字符串替换double)
Test3耗时:1200毫秒
Test4耗时:3000毫秒
编译和获取字节码
javac.exe LocalTest1.java
javap.exe -c LocalTest1 > LocalTest1.bc
public class LocalTest1 {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
double test;
for (double i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
test = i;
}
long finish = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Test1 Took: " + (finish - start) + " msecs");
}
}
public class LocalTest2 {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (double i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
double test = i;
}
long finish = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Test1 Took: " + (finish - start) + " msecs");
}
}
Compiled from "LocalTest1.java"
public class LocalTest1 {
public LocalTest1();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static void main(java.lang.String[]) throws java.lang.Exception;
Code:
0: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
3: lstore_1
4: dconst_0
5: dstore 5
7: dload 5
9: ldc2_w #3 // double 1.0E9d
12: dcmpg
13: ifge 28
16: dload 5
18: dstore_3
19: dload 5
21: dconst_1
22: dadd
23: dstore 5
25: goto 7
28: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
31: lstore 5
33: getstatic #5 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
36: new #6 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
39: dup
40: invokespecial #7 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
43: ldc #8 // String Test1 Took:
45: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
48: lload 5
50: lload_1
51: lsub
52: invokevirtual #10 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(J)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
55: ldc #11 // String msecs
57: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
60: invokevirtual #12 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
63: invokevirtual #13 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
66: return
}
Compiled from "LocalTest2.java"
public class LocalTest2 {
public LocalTest2();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static void main(java.lang.String[]) throws java.lang.Exception;
Code:
0: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
3: lstore_1
4: dconst_0
5: dstore_3
6: dload_3
7: ldc2_w #3 // double 1.0E9d
10: dcmpg
11: ifge 24
14: dload_3
15: dstore 5
17: dload_3
18: dconst_1
19: dadd
20: dstore_3
21: goto 6
24: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
27: lstore_3
28: getstatic #5 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
31: new #6 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
34: dup
35: invokespecial #7 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
38: ldc #8 // String Test1 Took:
40: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
43: lload_3
44: lload_1
45: lsub
46: invokevirtual #10 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(J)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
49: ldc #11 // String msecs
51: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
54: invokevirtual #12 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
57: invokevirtual #13 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
60: return
}
更新后的答案
比较所有JVM优化的性能确实不容易。然而,这在某种程度上是可能的。在谷歌卡尺中更好的测试和详细的结果
关于博客的一些细节:应该在循环内部还是循环之前声明变量? GitHub存储库:https://github.com/gunduru/jvdt 双case和100M循环的测试结果(是的所有JVM细节):https://microbenchmarks.appspot.com/runs/b1cef8d1-0e2c-4120-be61-a99faff625b4
声明前1759.209 ns DeclaredInside 2,242.308 ns
双重声明的部分测试代码
这与上面的代码并不相同。如果您只是编写了一个虚拟循环,JVM将跳过它,因此至少您需要赋值并返回一些东西。在Caliper文档中也推荐这样做。
@Param int size; // Set automatically by framework, provided in the Main
/**
* Variable is declared inside the loop.
*
* @param reps
* @return
*/
public double timeDeclaredInside(int reps) {
/* Dummy variable needed to workaround smart JVM */
double dummy = 0;
/* Test loop */
for (double i = 0; i <= size; i++) {
/* Declaration and assignment */
double test = i;
/* Dummy assignment to fake JVM */
if(i == size) {
dummy = test;
}
}
return dummy;
}
/**
* Variable is declared before the loop.
*
* @param reps
* @return
*/
public double timeDeclaredBefore(int reps) {
/* Dummy variable needed to workaround smart JVM */
double dummy = 0;
/* Actual test variable */
double test = 0;
/* Test loop */
for (double i = 0; i <= size; i++) {
/* Assignment */
test = i;
/* Not actually needed here, but we need consistent performance results */
if(i == size) {
dummy = test;
}
}
return dummy;
}
总结:declardbefore表示更好的性能——非常小——它违背了最小作用域原则。JVM实际上应该为您做这件事
其他回答
请跳到最新的答案…
对于那些关心绩效的人,可以去掉系统。输出并将循环限制为1字节。使用double (test 1/2)和使用String(3/4),在Windows 7 Professional 64位和JDK-1.7.0_21上运行的时间以毫秒为单位,如下所示。字节码(下面也给出了test1和test2的字节码)是不同的。我懒得测试可变和相对复杂的对象。
双
Test1耗时:2710毫秒
Test2耗时:2790毫秒
字符串(在测试中用字符串替换double)
Test3耗时:1200毫秒
Test4耗时:3000毫秒
编译和获取字节码
javac.exe LocalTest1.java
javap.exe -c LocalTest1 > LocalTest1.bc
public class LocalTest1 {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
double test;
for (double i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
test = i;
}
long finish = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Test1 Took: " + (finish - start) + " msecs");
}
}
public class LocalTest2 {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (double i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
double test = i;
}
long finish = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Test1 Took: " + (finish - start) + " msecs");
}
}
Compiled from "LocalTest1.java"
public class LocalTest1 {
public LocalTest1();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static void main(java.lang.String[]) throws java.lang.Exception;
Code:
0: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
3: lstore_1
4: dconst_0
5: dstore 5
7: dload 5
9: ldc2_w #3 // double 1.0E9d
12: dcmpg
13: ifge 28
16: dload 5
18: dstore_3
19: dload 5
21: dconst_1
22: dadd
23: dstore 5
25: goto 7
28: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
31: lstore 5
33: getstatic #5 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
36: new #6 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
39: dup
40: invokespecial #7 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
43: ldc #8 // String Test1 Took:
45: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
48: lload 5
50: lload_1
51: lsub
52: invokevirtual #10 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(J)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
55: ldc #11 // String msecs
57: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
60: invokevirtual #12 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
63: invokevirtual #13 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
66: return
}
Compiled from "LocalTest2.java"
public class LocalTest2 {
public LocalTest2();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static void main(java.lang.String[]) throws java.lang.Exception;
Code:
0: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
3: lstore_1
4: dconst_0
5: dstore_3
6: dload_3
7: ldc2_w #3 // double 1.0E9d
10: dcmpg
11: ifge 24
14: dload_3
15: dstore 5
17: dload_3
18: dconst_1
19: dadd
20: dstore_3
21: goto 6
24: invokestatic #2 // Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
27: lstore_3
28: getstatic #5 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
31: new #6 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
34: dup
35: invokespecial #7 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
38: ldc #8 // String Test1 Took:
40: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
43: lload_3
44: lload_1
45: lsub
46: invokevirtual #10 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(J)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
49: ldc #11 // String msecs
51: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
54: invokevirtual #12 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
57: invokevirtual #13 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
60: return
}
更新后的答案
比较所有JVM优化的性能确实不容易。然而,这在某种程度上是可能的。在谷歌卡尺中更好的测试和详细的结果
关于博客的一些细节:应该在循环内部还是循环之前声明变量? GitHub存储库:https://github.com/gunduru/jvdt 双case和100M循环的测试结果(是的所有JVM细节):https://microbenchmarks.appspot.com/runs/b1cef8d1-0e2c-4120-be61-a99faff625b4
声明前1759.209 ns DeclaredInside 2,242.308 ns
双重声明的部分测试代码
这与上面的代码并不相同。如果您只是编写了一个虚拟循环,JVM将跳过它,因此至少您需要赋值并返回一些东西。在Caliper文档中也推荐这样做。
@Param int size; // Set automatically by framework, provided in the Main
/**
* Variable is declared inside the loop.
*
* @param reps
* @return
*/
public double timeDeclaredInside(int reps) {
/* Dummy variable needed to workaround smart JVM */
double dummy = 0;
/* Test loop */
for (double i = 0; i <= size; i++) {
/* Declaration and assignment */
double test = i;
/* Dummy assignment to fake JVM */
if(i == size) {
dummy = test;
}
}
return dummy;
}
/**
* Variable is declared before the loop.
*
* @param reps
* @return
*/
public double timeDeclaredBefore(int reps) {
/* Dummy variable needed to workaround smart JVM */
double dummy = 0;
/* Actual test variable */
double test = 0;
/* Test loop */
for (double i = 0; i <= size; i++) {
/* Assignment */
test = i;
/* Not actually needed here, but we need consistent performance results */
if(i == size) {
dummy = test;
}
}
return dummy;
}
总结:declardbefore表示更好的性能——非常小——它违背了最小作用域原则。JVM实际上应该为您做这件事
局部变量的作用域应该总是尽可能的小。
在你的例子中,我假设str没有在while循环之外使用,否则你就不会问这个问题,因为在while循环内部声明它不是一个选项,因为它不会编译。
因此,由于str不在循环之外使用,因此str的最小作用域是在while循环内。
因此,答案强调str绝对应该在while循环中声明。没有如果,没有并且,没有但是。
The only case where this rule might be violated is if for some reason it is of vital importance that every clock cycle must be squeezed out of the code, in which case you might want to consider instantiating something in an outer scope and reusing it instead of re-instantiating it on every iteration of an inner scope. However, this does not apply to your example, due to the immutability of strings in java: a new instance of str will always be created in the beginning of your loop and it will have to be thrown away at the end of it, so there is no possibility to optimize there.
编辑:(在答案下面注入我的评论)
In any case, the right way to do things is to write all your code properly, establish a performance requirement for your product, measure your final product against this requirement, and if it does not satisfy it, then go optimize things. And what usually ends up happening is that you find ways to provide some nice and formal algorithmic optimizations in just a couple of places which make our program meet its performance requirements instead of having to go all over your entire code base and tweak and hack things in order to squeeze clock cycles here and there.
我比较了这两个(相似的)例子的字节代码:
我们来看1。例子:
package inside;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
while(true){
String str = String.valueOf(System.currentTimeMillis());
System.out.println(str);
}
}
}
在javac Test.java, javap -c Test之后,你会得到:
public class inside.Test extends java.lang.Object{
public inside.Test();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1; //Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
Code:
0: invokestatic #2; //Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
3: invokestatic #3; //Method java/lang/String.valueOf:(J)Ljava/lang/String;
6: astore_1
7: getstatic #4; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
10: aload_1
11: invokevirtual #5; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
14: goto 0
}
让我们看看2。例子:
package outside;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str;
while(true){
str = String.valueOf(System.currentTimeMillis());
System.out.println(str);
}
}
}
在javac Test.java, javap -c Test之后,你会得到:
public class outside.Test extends java.lang.Object{
public outside.Test();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1; //Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
Code:
0: invokestatic #2; //Method java/lang/System.currentTimeMillis:()J
3: invokestatic #3; //Method java/lang/String.valueOf:(J)Ljava/lang/String;
6: astore_1
7: getstatic #4; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
10: aload_1
11: invokevirtual #5; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
14: goto 0
}
观察结果表明,这两个例子没有什么不同。这是JVM规范的结果……
但是为了最佳编码实践的名义,建议在尽可能小的范围内声明变量(在本例中,它是在循环内部,因为这是唯一使用变量的地方)。
变量的声明应该尽可能靠近使用它们的地方。
它使RAII(资源获取初始化)更容易。
它使变量的范围保持紧凑。这让优化器工作得更好。
这个问题的一个解决方案是提供一个变量作用域来封装while循环:
{
// all tmp loop variables here ....
// ....
String str;
while(condition){
str = calculateStr();
.....
}
}
当外部作用域结束时,它们将自动取消引用。